Critiques on the Communist Manifesto: ‘Why Utopia May Actually Be Dystopia’
The Communist Manifesto is a calling to arms for the proletariat - more commonly regarded as the humble working class. He urges to seize the means of the production of the bourgeoisie. While overall it is a rally to equality - the true nature of communism is lacking. How can a society innovate when the means of production are equal? The very core statement of communism is controversial. Societal stagnance will not last long. The world rapidly develops, and without innovation, government systems are rendered useless and the people speak out against it.
The nature of people is to question, to inquire. Challenging and criticizing is easy, and discontentedness can often evolve into further stages of unrest; this has happened time and time again throughout history. Ancient Greece is a paradigm for representing the fluctuation of government. First around 2200 BCE, the Minoans reigned. The Minoans were led by a monarch. Eventually, the Mycenaeans conquered them, and they fell in turn. Around 800 began the transition between monarchy to oligarchy. Greek outpost colonies opened up free trade, developing a new wealthy class who were not content with the king in power. Thus, these aristocrats overthrew them. It became unambiguous that there was no balance between the people and the rulers. This was modeled as a feudal system, almost. The extent of poverty in these city-states encouraged military leaders who had an established repute with their soldiers to question the authority of these aristocrats. These people reigned through the installation of fear in their people, by using force to suppress those who would not listen. Eventually, a faction grew tired of this and established democracy, which means rule by the people. No figure held too much power. It was in the hands of the people. With less centralization, parts of Greece kept this system for centuries to come.
From the dynamics of governments in Ancient Greece we can derive that more concentration of power indicates more concentration of wealth results in a critical mindset of the people. This is why Marx thought people would be accepting of communism - because of the concentration of wealth and power. A class struggle is a political struggle. From this, one can understand where Marx is coming from. But because of this, people would eventually become agitated at the system of communism. Marx lays out his perception of communism, known as Marxism.
Marx begins with the principle that there used to be a manifold of social rank, and now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. With the increasing means of production a wealth gap has been created, and hence there are only two real classes, he says. The increasing means of production were insinuated by discovery of new land and creation of new inventions. He also claims that each of these advances were accompanied by a political advance.
Marx believes there are only two classes - but is this true? He claims the medieval ages had a whole tier, a social pyramid. This is false, because under feudalism there were serfs, knights, a small merchant class, and then nobles and burghers. With the expansion of technology and government, there is much more to do. When the bourgeoisie politically advances, governments become larger, creating more jobs and more fields. Take American development. In the 1700s, it was a colonial town, people traded at a smaller level, and ultimately there weren’t many classes. But upon independence, the Americans created a more centralized government, creating new classes because of expanded opportunities. With extension into the west, Americans expanded and established a whole new flank of society. Post-World War II, Americans began ending their isolationist agenda and started to interact with the whole world, opening possibilities. Nowadays, we can see there is a massive social hierarchy. There are the homeless beggars, there are the working class under welfare, there are uprising workers, a middle class, a small business class, an upper middle/professional class, an upper class, multi-millionaires, and billionaires. This is a massive manifold, with so many different classifications of wealth. It can be noticed that this development creates new classes. So it can be argued that Marx is wrong about the classes here.
This greatly alters the point of his manifesto because he believes that there are solely two camps pitted against each other, which seems to not be the predicament.
Marx talks about how the bourgeoisie have increased their political power upon increasing their capital. He speaks of how the bourgeoisie attacked feudalism by taking down the aristocracy. He promulgates that the means in which the bourgeoisie took control - capital will be their downfall.
Marx talks about the bourgeoisie being reliant on wage labor to increase their capital. He professes that they are reliant on revolutionizing the means of production, and by that the relation with the rest of the populace. Because the bourgeoisie need to maintain positive relationships with the proletariat, they will crumble if those ties are broken.
This may be true, but the proletariat have much more to do to overthrow the bourgeoisie than simply exhibiting sheer defiance. Since the economy and the government both favor and are run by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat are reliant on the bourgeoisie in order to have a livelihood. Given the dynamics of the poverty cycle, the proletariat can not resign because they are dependent on the little money that they receive working for manufacturing companies. The proletariat, in order to break their chains, need to work their way into the government to ever start a revolution.Without supporting political leaders, there is no way for the proletariat to break their chains.
There is also another factor that disproves Marx’s statement of it being simple to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Marx seems to come across saying that the proletariat all think similarly. Of course, the poor come from many different backgrounds, and the education system can greatly change views. Marx believed that proletariat are implacable; they can’t be appeased. This isn’t exactly valid. An entire class of people, who make up a large percentage of the populace all have different ideologies. It is not possible to think in sync with all of one’s comrades. Given how the proletariat are educated scantily, there is little chance of enlightenment to certain perspectives. Hence, whom Marx proclaims to be a brethren, can not support rebellion because they have not all been exposed to it.
In the next paragraph Marx describes that the bourgeoisie have created more inventions and a colossal amount of product than the epochs before them; their achievements are more remarkable by a huge amount. Yet, he remarks, that this all sleeps in the lap of labor, human labor. He states that the bourgeoisie don’t have control over the extent anymore, and they have unintentionally created the proletariat. Their downfall is inevitable. Marx is making a bold statement - the world and its classes are not so polarized.
With the fall of feudalism upon a huge market, and with colonization opened a huge market. The bourgeoisie have expanded a world in their image. And by expansion have they not only increased their means of production, but also a free market for all. Merchants, firms, and companies have provided jobs and created a robust middle class. The relations of production are many. There is not one relationship, because there are more than two classes. With other relations with the petty-bourgeoisie, the middle class, the government, the military, colonized territories, etc, the bourgeoisie's downfall does not rest solely in the hands of the proletariat.
Even though small businesses have diminutive capital, the owners don’t sink into the proletariat. Diminutive capital means that they don’t have enough money to spend to expand their business. However, well established small businesses have reputations of good quality, which the methods of manufacturing can’t provide as easily because of their near atomization. While they won’t vastly grow, the middle class will still stay in the middle class; the remnants of monarchy and landowners will still keep their places. There is just a new dominant class, the bourgeoisie. A change in leaders does not mean a fall. The petty bourgeoisie still creates opportunities for the middle class.
Marx concludes his argument for this chapter by stating that bourgeoisie is unfit to rule because those below them only sink deeper into poverty.
Marx is not incorrect in this - capitalism does leave a section of people behind. But what he proposes later on - communism, gives stagnancy. No one advances. When the government regulates private property - there are no assets. Just wage labor for the government. And when people live off wage labor, they have less money. Hence, Marx is proposing absolute equality - but not utopian equality, equality in which all are in a poor predicament.
Marx begins the opening statement with an error. He states that communists have no interests separate from the rest of the proletariat. Marx generalizes an entire class of people right here. An entire section of people can’t all possibly think the same way - ideologies are wide and diverse. Proletarians could have varying interests - some may want communism, and some may still believe in capitalism. Others could simply be naive. There are endless possibilities to the way people think. There are different nationalities of the proletariat. Communism claims to speak for all of them. How is it possible when nationalism is an infectious ideology that changes the mindset of the country as a whole? A poor Russian will not think the same as a poor Frenchman, then. France’s radical nationalism will insinuate a very different thought than Russia’s suppression of the poor.
In this chapter, Marx lays out what communism would mean, how it would be organized. He sums the main principle of communism: abolition of private property.
Abolition of private property is essentially abolition of assets. Without property, there is no generational wealth. Without generational wealth, there is little way to become wealthy. Or at least in the circumstances of the proletariat, there is no way for them to break their circumstance. Marx promulgates that it doesn’t matter, because the bourgeoisie are the only class which has property. However, business is defined as property. If one can’t own a business, the only way to suffice is by working in government. They regulate wages, therefore if one is only living off of their salary they are highly unlikely to increase their wealth throughout generations because of how wages are allocated merely so that people can live in the now. The government decides what is crucial. And without diversity of practice, there is no intensive innovation. Without innovation comes stagnancy, and with stangnancy comes poverty. With that comes a terrifying phrase: universal poverty.
Marx argues that because capital is social, then the bourgeoisie also have social influence. Thereby, when they lose private property, he says, the property goes to everyone who contributes to setting that capital in motion.
Workers don’t deserve bourgeoisie property because they receive a wage. It is a fair exchange. Given that the worker is only an appendage of the machine, they play little role in actual production. If anyone is deserving of bourgeoisie property, then it would be the machine, because the machine does most of the work. While the worker should receive more than the quantum wage, bourgeoisie capital is not as collective as it seems. The profit from manufacturing goes to the bourgeoisie, because the capital is spent on the workers. The money spent goes to four things - wages, machine operation, distribution, and the total cost of raw material. Since the capital belongs to the bourgeoisie, they are spending some of it on the workers. The profit is then entitled to the bourgeois. Therefore, because business is a collective effort, they are giving property collectively. Thus, Marx’s logic is wrong. Any money which a bourgeois may possess is his money well deserved. While profit is derived from collective work, in a way, the workers receive a portion of the profit due to wage.
Marx then concludes his statement, remarking that capital is a social power. Marx begins a new thought, stating that it is unfair that workers are only paid enough to keep them alive. He says that the current workforce is only a means of accumulating more workforce.
Workforce is a means of expanding profit and bourgeois property. Business and manufacturing is about expansion, why would one spend capital if they didn’t want profit. Low wages are a result of workforce competition. As businesses expand, so do their workforces. So, if there is high competition for work, then the bourgeoisie is not making as much profit as it seems. This is why capital is positive - because as it expands, the more money the workers receive. The need to accumulate workforce, by that way, means the more leverage the worker has.
While bourgeoisie may not pay workers a lot of money, Marx’s calling for the loss of bourgeoisie independence and individuality is unfair. Rightfully earned property can have whatever independence it wants. The bourgeoisie are a result of free trade. As goods were exchanged, the bourgeoisie accumulated capital, which was spent to expand their business even more. Colonization and technological advances resulted in the more rapid growth of business. Hence, the bourgeoisie acquired capital through trading, well-earned money. That capital, therefore, can be spent as the bourgeoisie chooses and the government deems legal. That capital is personal property, because wealth is an asset. Communism calls for the abolition of this property, which is not right.
Marx elaborates that because he wants to abolish bourgeoisie freedoms, and this means free buying and free selling would be abolished. Without this, everything is rationed. No one can have more than anyone else, except for the government. The government sells freely, and purchases goods freely. To work means to work for the government. The government grows, accumulating capital. What can be seen here is a new bourgeoisie, and a new proletariat. Marx is regurgitating a system which he does not like. Unlike capitalism, there is no way to harness individuality because there is no way to succeed as a citizen. When capital is limited, potential is limited. When property is abolished, then freedom is abolished. How will even the proletariat benefit from this form of society? The proletariat are allowed to have assets, they can buy and sell as they please. Because of this anyone has a chance in capitalist society. Even diminutive capital can result in wealth accumulation. In communism, this is possible for no one.
One problem with Marx’s society is that without circulation of products, then corruption becomes present. Because private property is abolished, the government owns everything. Their power is unlimited. The power of the bourgeoisie is not unlimited, because they are subject to competition. Because of competition in manufacturing, the bourgeoisie cannot charge however much they want for products. They cannot buy however much they want. And because they are subject to jurisprudence, the bourgeoisie have a quantum amount which they have to pay their workers. A communist government would not be subject to this. Given the way Marx wants communism to work, communist jurisprudence would be detrimental.
Marx says that new ideas are simply bringing to light the sway of what is happening in an old one.
But because communism is a radical new idea, which is hard to find in the literature and life of society, communism is a step too far. If an idea has not already incorporated itself into society, it will not be taken seriously.
Take France, for example. French revolutionaries overthrew the monarchy because there already was an Age of Enlightenment. Without this, people - especially the upper class - would not have taken in the new form of government which acted on seemingly radical ideas. Communism doesn’t really have roots. It’s an entirely new form coming out of the Industrial Revolution. There aren’t elements of it in society, and because it is theoretical and radical, it will not be taken to. While all new class structures feature exploitation, the common class will not adopt a new structure just because it has similarities to the old one.
To round out this chapter, Marx lists the features of communism which will be applicable across Europe. The first bullet is most striking - abolition of property in land form. Land is a valuable resource. If land can’t be privately owned, then there is no generational wealth. It’s such an asset, and it’s crucial for impoverished people to accumulate more wealth. On top of this, Marx wishes to abolish inheritance. This would make ascension from poverty even more difficult; every generation would have to build from the start. A heavy income tax is not fair additionally, because assets are illicit, the income tax greatly reduces salaries, which makes wealth even hard to come by. This may not make the rich richer, but it will make the poor poorer.
This is the flaw with Marx’s vision of communism: the government has a plethora of power and wealth, so that no one gains anything with the intention of no one losing anything. The government’s power is shown in his fifth bullet, arguably the most dangerous to the welfare of a state. He calls for centralization of credit in the state, and an exclusive government monopoly. Monopolies are a massive problem - if there is no competition, then prices skyrocket. This is how the communistic dynamic would play out: people aren’t making enough money, they have zero assets, and to make things extraordinarily worse, prices are quite high. If the government has a monopoly, whenever they need more money, they can raise their prices. People need a certain set of things to live, and sustenance is one of them. A corrupt or poor government could, and would, charge high prices for items as simplistic as bread. The next few bullets display roots of bourgeoisie industrialism. Marx believes that the government should control all industrial and agricultural production, and should on top of that call for a massive army to support this production. From this comes the symbolic communist saying, “seize the means of production.” If the government, however, controls all the factories, then that is virtually the only source of work for the proletariat, and the common people. Since the government owns all the factories, they become a new bourgeoisie, but more powerful. The bourgeoisie are an aristocracy, but the government has jurisprudence. Because people need work, the government can pay people however much they want. This creates a goliath issue, the government has monopoly over everything, including work. The government can control the wealth of everyone.
These are Marx’s main visions of communism. Monopolization is incredibly risky. Capitalist societies work because they eliminate monopolies. There is always going to be competition, so there will always be fair prices. Marx believes that if the proletariat rise up and become the political power, they will not fall to corruption and monopolistic policies will not be an issue. In contrast, Marx also wishes the proletariat to become the ruling class. Marx defines political power as a way of suppression from one class to another. If the proletariat take control of the government, won’t they become a new bourgeoisie, except worse? Not all proletarians have similar ideologies, in some areas, governments will fall to corruption, and life will become a quotidian struggle for the people.
Marx’s third chapter is about the literature of different forms of socialism. He talks of five variations of socialism, whether Feudal, Diminutive Bourgeois, German, Bourgeois/Conservative, and Critical Utopian/Communism. This chapter is not very important, it simply discusses the broad idea of socialism. The most important area is the area describing bourgeois socialism. Marx despises this form of socialism, he sums it up in an axiom: The bourgeois is a bourgeois, for the benefit of the working class. He says all of the reforms made are only meant to pacify the proletariat in order to keep the bourgeoisie in power. This is not true, bourgeois or conservative socialism is a legitimate way to run a government. While the bourgeoisie still have a good deal of wealth, they are trying to alleviate the proletariat from their “disintegrating state”, as Marx remarks. While this system is not trying to be progressive, and rather attempting to stifle revolutionary components, the concept of free trade and assets make generational wealth possible. It’s still more effective than communism because wealth is easier to accumulate and keep.
The final chapter is a summary of previous chapters, a call to action for the proletariat. Marx speaks for the communist party and who they ally with. He sets their immediate aim as to take care for the monetary welfare of the proletariat. Marx describes the communist party as a branch of the proletariat. The error with this is, again, not all proletarians have similar ideologies. Marx believes that he speaks for the whole of the proletariat, but he only represents a mere faction. Marx’s promulgations can cause some confusion. He speaks of the aims of the communist party, and then relates them to the proletariat’s aims.
Marx notes whom the communists ally with throughout Europe. In short, he summarizes, that the party allies with all radical groups seeking change in political order. He ends this chapter, which is exceedingly short, with a profession that the proletariat having nothing to lose but the fetters by which they are bound. Marx believes rebellion to be easier than it is. Because of the different relations between the proletariat and the antagonized relations between European nations, it is very difficult to unite. Nationalism has stirred division through all classes. The remnants of feudalism sit. There is more than one class relation. Under the writing is tagged the famous saying, working men of all countries, unite!
Since the manifesto is a relatively lengthy pamphlet, here are my main points:
1. Marx says that there are only two class camps - however, as industry and influence expand, so does the manifold of classes
a. Marx says there is no longer a small business class - this is not true, diminutive capital can expand with investment
2. The Manifesto says it is relatively simple from the proletariat to break their chains, however, nationalism has divided every class
3. Capitalism fuels competition, but communism is monopolistic, the government regulates all goods, which is detrimental to the economy
4. Wealth accumulation is nearly impossible in communism due to inheritance being illegal and all property public
a. Without wealth accumulation every generation has to start from scratch
5. Extremely high tax rates affect the poor greatly
a. Because everything is owned publicly, the government needs an excessive amount to maintain everything, and some of this has to come from the working class
6. Since wealth can’t be attributed to a business, people can only retrieve money from the government. Wages are regulated, and because of this, results in societal stagnance and monopolization, turning life into a quotidian struggle