Essay About Communist Manifesto And End Of Nation-States

The Communist Manifesto – Summary and Analysis
The Communist Manifesto – Summary and Analysis
SummaryWith the discovery of America and the subsequent expansion of economic markets, a new class arose, a manufacturing class, which took control of international and domestic trade by producing goods more efficiently than the closed guilds (220). With their growing economic powers, this class began to gain political power, destroying the remainders of the old feudal society which aimed to restrict their ambition. In four sections, Marx and Engels have put forward the concept that the working class is exploited by the bourgeoisie.  The first section introduces the Marxist idea of history as a class struggle. It contrasts the conditions and development of various sections of society, “freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman in a word, oppressor and oppressed” (219).  The Manifesto hypothesizes how the development of each of these in history gave rise to the next step in an inevitable historical process culminating ultimately in the rise of one working class. The second section of the Communist Manifesto addresses the nature of the new working class which is called the proletariat. This section reviews its implications for the advancement of society, including the abolition of property and family and also stresses a kind of Utopia that can only be brought about by violence and conflict with the working class wresting power from the bourgeoisie. This conflict is projected also to bring about the end of nation-states and, ultimately, all forms of government, resulting in a workers paradise, or utopia. Parts 3 and 4 of the Communist Manifesto are a bit obscure and relate more with the politics of the age and geographic region in which the document was written. Section 3 discusses the various forms of socialism, feudal socialism, petty-bourgeois socialism, and “true” socialism. Part 4 goes on to show how these various groups inter-relate. The stated aim of this initiative was to create a document that simplified and illuminated the beliefs and doctrines of communism.Analysis & CritiqueKarl Marx wrote in 1848, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”; it still holds true today. Marx uses the example of the collapse of the feudal system to help describe the structure of society amidst the creations of manufacturing systems and owners of the means of production. Feudal society has since given way to democracy, yet the class separations have only intensified. The basic themes of this piece attempt to prove the damage that free market and the revolutionizing of production by the owning class has done to society. As Marx states “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps: the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat,” (220) or in todays terminology, the upper, middle, and lower classes, or even the 99 % versus the 1%. The growing middle and lower classes in America cannot compete with the “old wealth” of the upper class. Some entrepreneurs, who were in the right place at the right time, have managed to climb the social ladder and enter the bourgeoisie. An individual born today is more likely to move down the ladder rather than up. Marx addressed that possibility by stating, “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers (233).” The bourgeoisie gain strength through political advances at the expense of the proletariat. The United States Senate, the Millionaires Club, as well as Congress and the office of President, have all evolved from feudal systems. Marx states, “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” I would disagree that the existence of government is for the sole purpose of looking after the interests of the middle classes. I would, however, agree that certainly our history has shown that the government cares a lot more about the interests of the upper/ middle classes than they do about the working class. However, I hope that we will continue moving away from this, toward a form of government that is more concerned for every class in society. Most legislation is directed to the bourgeoisie of American society. Recent laws have included tax credits for private schools, tax cuts for wealthy individuals, acceptance of an outrageous war budget while people are hungry in America, and the backing of financial monopolies in federal court cases. There are a lot of corrupt government officials; the wealthy can pay off their representative to make sure he or she does whatever they want. The Communist Manifesto claims that in this stage of society, that every victory for the proletariat is actually a victory for the bourgeoisie. The commercial relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has developed as Marx described it would. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe.” An aspect, according to Marx, of the bourgeoisie that has not yet emerged in American society is that of equality among the workers. He claimed that with the shift from manual labor to modern industry, that women superseded men in the workforce. While there is growing equality among certain professions, there is still a discrepancy in pay and equality of position. Certain positions are unavailable to women, simply because they are women. The bourgeoisie in the military refuse to allow equality among the ranks. Women can fight for their country, even die, but are not often allowed in “dangerous” positions such as the Special Forces. Women still cannot participate in the NFL or the NBA (although they have been given their own versions: the WNBA and the “Legends Football League). Marx describes the international aspect of the bourgeoisie as, “The bourgeoisie draws all nations into civilization, it compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production to become bourgeois themselves.” Even though the United States was built by the hands of the proletariat, its constitution and laws have been set by the bourgeoisie. This fight has been raging for well over 200 years. Unlike in the Communist Manifesto, the proletariat has not gained enough political power to revolt and successfully overturn the bourgeoisie. Many individual groups, African-Americans for example, have managed to become a legitimate part of the proletariat through the civil rights movement primarily, but not destroy the bourgeoisie. In America the proletariat is expanding even more, but with gaining power. Marx states,” The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan all fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class” (231). Another bourgeoisie establishment, Wal-Mart, is driving the “mom and pop” shops into extinction while keeping their employees in the proletariat class. While taking full advantage of the “dangerous class – the social scum” (231) Wal-Mart is the epitome of Marxs description of the bourgeoisie converting people into an exchange value. An employee is only worth what he produces. By outsourcing, Wal-Mart is proving, at least to the bourgeoisie, that this aspect of the Communist Manifesto holds true still today. Revolution will, and must, take place someday, but not to the extent that Marx described. I believe that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariats need each other to exist. The large-scale revolt has not happened because the bourgeoisie have placed barriers in its way. Marx describes the proletariat unionizing and overturning the political power of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie can and does force the proletariat to stay in their compliant position. The last proletariat revolution to happen in the United States occurred in 1776, when we, the proletariats, revolted against England, the bourgeoisie.        The Communist Manifesto is a declaration of the intentions of a communist organization.  It has also served as a brief and concise explanation of the ideas that form the foundation of communist and socialist ideology. The primary objective of communists and the revolutionary proletariat is the abolition of private property, for it is this that keeps them enslaved. Bourgeois economics, i.e., capitalism, requires that the owners of the means of production compensate workers only enough to ensure their mere physical subsistence and reproduction. In other words, the existence of bourgeois property, or capital as Marx calls it, relies on its radically unequal distribution. The only way the proletariat can free itself from bourgeois exploitation is to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat will destroy all remnants of bourgeois culture which act to prolong, if even subtly, their misery. This includes family organization, religion, morality, etc. The result of this struggle will be “an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all” (238). The book contains a highly ethical message of anguish at the abuse of the many by the few; the large disproportionate between the value of an individual’s work, and the quality of wage received for it. Marx witnessed in his day the consequences of the Industrial Revolution: the squalor, the poverty and the unrest, and felt indignation at such blatant exploitation. He wholeheartedly believed that communism is the answer. What communism boils down to proves to have some positives: the same standard for everyone, there would be less crime because the law is strictly enforced, it would eliminate cultural and hereditary elites, and a lot of communist countries invest heavily in education. Some negative aspects of communism include too much focus on the group instead of the individual One cant raise their personal position as simply as in democracy. Executions and other extreme punishments (for crimes that American courts do not currently give death sentences for) are more common in communist countries. America and many other countries could learn a lot from Communism. It is not a perfect answer to the social and political problems of the 21st century but it would certainly help to eradicate many current ones.