Karl Marx: Manifesto of the Communist Party - Term Paper Example

Discuss How Marx Ideas are Valuable for thinking about Modern Society. Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” (1848) is arguably the most influential analytical political manifesto in delineating the class struggle within the communist/capitalist dichotomy paradigm. Essentially, Marx’s classification of the “Bourgeois and Proletarians” symbolises Marxists’ proposition that the history of capitalism has culminated in the class struggle whereby: “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary constitute of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx). Accordingly, Karl Marx viewed societal structures as comprising effectively two components; namely the “bourgeoisie and the proletariat” in asserting that “our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Communist Manifesto, 1848). To this end, the underlying proposition of the Communist Manifesto is that the social class struggle under the capitalist social paradigm, whilst creating oppression of the “proletarians”, ultimately lends itself to the demise of capitalism through revolution. Indeed, Linklater posits that “the structure of world capitalism guaranteed the emergence of the first authentically universal class which would liberate species from the consequences of estrangement between states and nations” (In Devetak et al, 2007 66). Moreover, Larson et al refer to the argument that socialists embraced the task of working class mobilisation and that “the perspectives which socialist theorists can be divided are revolutionary trade union activity and revolutionary transformation of capitalist society (Larson et al, 38). On the one hand, if we consider this in terms of the contemporary socio-economic framework; continuous evolution of social structures and demise of entrenched class barriers would suggest that Marx’s “bourgeoisie and proletariat” class model may be redundant and therefore should be viewed as solely contextually in terms of the socio-political backdrop influencing Marx’s theory at the time (Bottomore 23). For example, Bottomore highlights that “changes in working class politics during the twentieth century from revolutionary to reformist ideas and actions…. It may be claimed that the social bond of nationality has proved more effective in creating a community than has that of class” (Bottomore 23). Moreover, Bottomore highlights the point that “the phenomena of class relations in modern capitalist societies, does not fit so well, nor has it been used so successfully in explaining, a number of other types of social stratification” (Bottomore 23). Alternatively, whilst social evolution has undoubtedly improved traditional class barriers, if we consider Marx’s proposition in terms of contemporary capitalism, whilst it may be easier to move up the class ladder particularly though the globalisation phenomenon; this serves to widen the category of people within the bourgeoisie, whilst maintaining the bourgeoisie/proletarian class distinction. Moreover, whilst the Manifesto makes express reference to the point that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”; subsequent writings of Marx acknowledge the inherent complexities of modern social class. For example, in the German Ideology (1845), Marx proposes the concept of a class system intrinsically embodying a system of estates where “the distinction between the personal and the class individual, the accidental nature of conditions of life for the individual, appears only with the emergence of class, which itself is a product of the bourgeoisie”. Therefore, to this end, Marx’s class system is associated with “studying class in this second sense, as his scientific works make abundantly clear, and so he did not have to confront in detail the difficulties which arise when his general theory of class is used to explain the origins and development of feudal societies, of a caste system or of the Asiatic form of society which he had himself distinguished” (Bottomore 23). This in turn further supports the proposition that the Communist Manifesto classification of “class” continues to be relevant in the modern socio-economic framework. This is particularly evident if we consider Marxist theory in context of the current global economic crisis and the globalisation phenomenon. For example, in the Manifesto (1848), Marx asserts that the model of capitalism is set up to ultimately fail due to the revolution of the social classes under the class dichotomy paradigm. Moreover, in addressing development of capitalism refers to the industrial revolution and that “meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacturer was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois” (Marx). Therefore, this supports the continued relevance of Marx’s class theory and “system of estates” model to the contemporary framework. For example, whilst industrialisation led to increased job opportunities, ultimately “each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class” (Communist Manifesto, 1848). If we consider this in terms of the current framework, it is evident that the growth of the Internet and the digitisation of business have offered novel business opportunities, which nevertheless continues the pattern of owners and workers under the Marxist class model. Furthermore, the Manifesto asserts that “all fixed, fast-frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they ossify. All that is sold melts into air, all that is holy is profaned….. the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere” (Communist Manifesto, 1848). Accordingly, in considering the impact of industrialisation in context of Marx’s wider view of class “estates”, many commentators argue that the Manifesto is extremely pertinent to modern society in predicting the globalisation phenomenon. Indeed, Devetak et al highlight how the globalisation phenomenon is intensifying and therefore resulting in new ways of doing business along with novel social structures such as social networking with Facebook and MySpace as prime examples (Devetak, 2007). Therefore it is submitted that that Marx’s prediction regarding international capitalism clearly warrants consideration particularly with regard to the concept of globalisation. To this end, Devetak et al argue that “Marx believed that the expansion of capitalism, or what today would be called globalisation, was transforming human society from a collection of separate states to a world capitalist society where the principal form of conflict would be between classes rather than nations. According to Marx, the conflictual properties of capitalism would eventually prove unsustainable: a political revolution led by the working classes would overthrow the capitalist order and usher in a worldwide socialist society free from the alienation, exploitation and estrangement produced by capitalist structures” (Devetak et al, 66). Additionally, if we further consider globalisation and the Marxist proposition regarding the class system, Marcy and Goldstein argue that the scientific and technological revolution has confounded expectations of an enfranchised workforce (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). Alternatively, Marcy and Goldstein posit that in accordance with the Marxist bourgeoisie/proletarian paradigm, the interrelationship between globalisation and technological advances has resulted in increased levels of exploitation, which has actually heightened the gap between a predominantly white aristocracy and black and Latino working class (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). Furthermore, Marcy and Goldstein argue that the globalisation phenomenon has actually resulted in increasing the gap between the West and poor countries with heightened levels of unemployment and negative economic effects. This argument would appear to have support from a consideration of the impact of globalisation on the contemporary tourism business model (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). For example, from a business perspective, in considering the impact of globalisation on tourism, Wahab refers to the trends in globalisation to tourism with discussions of who the tourist is; their demands and the industry response, particularly in a multi channel climate and sustainable development (Wahab & Cooper, 2001). As such, Wahab & Cooper argue that the globalisation has fuelled increased competition between tourist destinations worldwide (Wahab & Cooper, 2001). However, whilst opening up markets, on the other hand and in line with Marcy and Goldstein’s arguments, the impact of globalisation on the traditional travel industry business model has wider ramifications for tourism from the host country perspective. For example, whilst there are significant benefits for the host country economy in terms of income and contribution to local infrastructure and development; conversely, globalisation of the tourist industry has altered the way in which holidays are booked and the type of packages offered, which can divert the direct economic benefits of tourism form the local host country economy. This is further evidenced by development of unconventional holiday modes such as sex tourism, which would support Marcy and Goldstein’s proposition that globalisation has resulted in the exploitation of the poor (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). For example, whilst for Thailand, tourism is the “largest source of revenue for Thailand after 1980 as commercial travel supplanted the American military” (Hitchcock, 135); the figures mask the hidden costs that can have a potentially negative impact on host tourist country such as exclusion of local business and products and leakage (Wahab & Copper, 2001). This is particularly evident from the instances of direct overhead expenditure at a localised level being deducted from local income and wages; which is referred to as “the leakage effect” (Xu, 1999). Indeed, Xu refers to leakage of tourism revenue in the Chinese destination of Gullin, which hosts a dense hotel population. Xu comments that “according to the estimates made by the Tourism Bureau of Gullin, in recent years about 90% of all foreign exchange revenues received by the hotel sector in Gullin were generated by joint-venture hotels” (Xu, 158). Increasingly, popular hotel destinations and infrastructure development relies on foreign investment and as such whilst foreign exchange is hailed a significant advantage of tourism for a host country in developing countries, this can be outweighed by the leakage affect (Hampton, 2003). To this end, Xu makes the point that “since the early 1989s, the local government of Gullin has set out almost entirely on the international tourism industry” (Xu 159). Xu further observes that “the benefits of foreign exchange revenues distributed directly to the local economy of Guilin is anything but encouraging” (Xu, 159); which further supports the continued relevance of the Communist Manifesto assertion that capitalism “has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Communist Manifesto, 1848). Additionally, Marcy and Goldstein (2009) argue that the current economic crisis is a perfect example of Marxist theory in exposing the continued dichotomy between the ruling class and the working class on grounds that the banking crisis mirrors the point that “the bourgeoisie has no theoretical framework within which to begin to approach the question. Their system is anarchic. Even government intervention and some limited planning cannot eradicate the anarchy imposed on a system based on private profit” (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). Additionally, in suggesting that this will continue under the Marxist class system mode, they comment that the ruling class have effectively ruled in secret and “bailed out on the working class profits and therefore from a Marxist perspective provides vital economic insights to the current economy” (Macy & Goldstein, 2009). This is further reflected in Marx’s 1857 preface to the “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” where he asserts: “In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness….. at a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with existing relations of production, or what is built a legal expression for the same thing – with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change in the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed”( 1858). In context of the current economic crisis, Marx’s view of capitalism is that ultimately the model will fail as whilst revolutionising the means of production results in increased economic power of the bourgeoisie, the concomitant impact of capitalism is socialisation of the working forces, thereby unifying workers. Marcy and Goldstein (2009) argue that this in turn conflicts with the concept of private property resulting in repetitive crises for workers due to the fact that “the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation” (Communist Manifesto, Marx). Additionally, the result of this as highlighted by Marx notion that “sooner or later, capitalist property relations become a fetter or a brake on further development of productive forces. Society cannot move forward any longer because of the stranglehold of private property. Revolution then ensues. The clash between socialised production and private ownership can only be resolved by socialising and ownership – that is by bringing socialised ownership into harmony with socialised production and setting society on a new course of planned production” (Communist Manifesto, 1848) Therefore, as such Marx suggests that capitalism effectively results in holding back production in the long term due to the disenfranchisement of the working class. This in turn results in significant consequence for the masses as mirrored by the current economic crisis, which is effectively the fundamental premise of Marxism and Marcy and Goldstein posit that this point is vital in highlighting the continued importance of Marxism in contemporary world (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). Furthermore Marcy and Goldstein refer to capitalist restructuring and argue that the capitalist business cycle intrinsically operates against workers rights being dependent on the capital/labour paradigm, which is disadvantageous during economic crises. This further reflects the Manifesto assertion that “the bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands (Communist Manifesto,1848). Indeed, contextually Marcy and Goldstein argue that the manifesto’s proposition of the inherent weakness of the capitalism model is supported by the continuous cycles of “revolutions”, culminating in economic crises from the Great Depression to the current economic crisis. For example, Marcy and Goldstein further argue that the Great Depression culminated as a result of the prior monopoly of the bourgeoisie and to this end, they posit that “Great Depression seemed to be the end of the line. Capitalism was unable to revive itself by economic means. In the mid thirties there was a slight upturn, but then world production continued to decline. Massive unemployment remained” (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). In considering the current economic crisis “In the present period it is once again helpful from a working class point of view to revive the discussion to clarify a perspective and prepare for struggle” (Marcy & Goldstein, 2009). Accordingly, the above analysis highlights that whilst communist versus capitalism debate remains contentious, arguably the Marx’s predictions regarding the impact of capitalism and industrialisation on the class system continues to remain pertinent to the contemporary socio-economic framework as highlighted by the globalisation phenomenon. Bibliography Thomas Burton Bottomore. Classes in modern society. Allen and Unwin 1973 R. Devetak, A. Burke, & J.George. An introduction to international relations. Cambridge University Press, 2007 Hitchcock, M. Tourism in Southeast Asia: challenges and new directions. Nias Press, 2008 S. Larson & B. Nissen. Theories of the labor movement. Wayne State University Press, 1987. S. Marcy & F. Goldstein. High Tech Low Pay. World View Forum, 2009. Wahab, S. & Cooper, C. Tourism in the Age of Globalisation Routledge: London, 2001 Xu, G. Economic development in China: case studies of Gullin. Routledge, 1999. Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto, 1848 Karl Marx. The German Ideology, 1845. Read More