The Political Vision of Communist Manifesto - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned History and Political Science 2 December The Communist Manifesto In the Communist Manifesto, Marx presents the unfolding of political evolution on the platform of history in the context of class struggles. In that perspective, as per Marx, the rise of the contemporary bourgeois society is not a novelty or a ground breaking change, but rather the sprouting of a new system endowed with all the ills inherent in the previous feudalistic or class based societies. Marx does give credit to the contemporary Industrial Revolution to bring into existence a world market, aided and bolstered by the occupation of new colonies by the imperialistic forces. This Industrial Revolution has certainly led to progress and development in a scientific, commercial and communicative context. Yet, it goes without saying that the evolution and advancement of the Industrial Revolution supported and fed by the bourgeois elements is not merely materialistic and economic in its ramifications, but does also have commensurate political ramifications. The bourgeoisie has not done away with the formal exploitative forces like feudalism and patriarchy to create an ideal world, but has rather done so to remove all challenge and resistance to its advancement and growth. The bourgeoisie system and notion of economic growth simply cannot survive and expand without causing an upheaval and disturbance in “the instruments of production “and “the relations of production”. Hence, as expected, the rise of the bourgeoisie has done away with all the hitherto existing notions of “national industries” thereby annihilating all the localized notions of belonging and allegiance. Yet, the irony of the matter is that the bourgeoisie concept of growth is not merely limited to profit accrual and limited domination. In contrast, the bourgeoisie intends to perpetuate its domination by remolding the existing socio-economic and politico-cultural structures as per one’s vision and interests. Hence to extend a material and political form to such vision and ideals, it is imperative for the bourgeoisie to compress and coagulate all sources and forms of production, leading to the unchallenged concentration of property in few hands. That way it gets easier for the bourgeoisie to retain a grip over the things and to perpetuate one’s advancement and dominion in the times to come. The existing feudal relations and frameworks of property holding were simply not in consonance with the bourgeoisie intentions. Hence, they were systematically dismantled and set aside. In their place the bourgeoisie put in place a seemingly just provision of free competition, while doing its best to twist the political and social norms to be in alignment with the essence of free competition. Yet, what went wrong with this change is that while molding the world to its vision, the bourgeoisie also brought into existence its own nemesis that are “the modern working class”. The bourgeoisie commoditized labor as any other factor of production. It homogenized labor by resorting to the mechanization of all modes of production. Yet the “labor” class created by the bourgeoisie is bound to emerge victorious very early, helped and aided by the existing technology and infrastructure created by the bourgeoisie. In its rift with the aristocratic classes, the bourgeoisie tend to solicit the support of labor. This not only gives recognition to the working class, but makes it a magnet for the other marginalized and sidelined sections of the society. As the working class emerges into an essentially bourgeoisie platform, it starts seeing the institutions set by the bourgeoisie like morality, law and religion as simply the tools of extending the vested bourgeoisie interests. However the rise of the working class tends to differ from all the previous revolutions in the sense that it tends to be a majority driven revolution instead of being a minority oriented historical movement. In its initial stages the struggle of the proletariat tends to be nationalistic in its scope and vision. However, later it is automatically expected to be pan-global in its ambit and approach. The proletariat revolution is essentially inevitable in the sense that the unfolding of the Industrial Revolution tends to come heavily on the proletariat interests and living conditions. So the proletariat stands to gain nothing from a political setup emerging out of this Industrial Revolution. When correlated with the historical facts, Marx’s vision of socio-political evolution to a great extent seems to be valid and realistic. Yet, this vision happens to be deficient in the sense that it tends to be too linear in its scope and structure. Even under the worst of circumstances, it is next to impossible for a specific class to annihilate all the other classes or to wrest a total political dominion over the other classes. Besides the process of socio-political evolution is always not that linear and mostly happens to be slow, complex and convoluted. So practically speaking, Marx’s vision of socio-political evolution comes out as being too idealistic and visionary. Besides, there is no denying the fact that in all the ages and times, there do are benign and progressive elements even amongst the dominant and majority classes, be they aristocratic or bourgeoisies. The Communist Manifesto declares that the communist interests tend to align seamlessly with those of the proletariat. Actually the communists happen to be the most committed and advanced section of the proletariat who represent the common interests of the proletariat across nations and intend to dissolve the notion of bourgeoisie private property accrued from the exploitation of the many by the few. The Industrial Revolution has already done away with the private property rights of the many in favor of the few. Here individuality and freedom are defined only in context of the capitalistic classes. So the communists intend to do away with all property that gives a few the rights to appropriate the property of the many. The objection like the devolution of the society in the absence of capitalism is shoddy in the sense that the working class that tends to work the most gets the least share in the modes of production designed by the bourgeois. Hence in upholding their right to private property, the bourgeois tend to uphold the ancient rights of the feudalistic and aristocratic classes. What the bourgeois simply intend to do is to further and facilitate their interests through the institutions of law, religion and education that have emerged out of their capitalist system of production. The hallmark of the communist agenda is that it no way intends to abolish the eternal values like goodness and justice. There is no denying the fact that Marx tends to be absolutely biased in his expectations of both the capitalists and the communists. In a realistic world, political and social groups never tend to be so singular minded and homogeneous. Besides, it is impossible to do away with the concept of private property in its essence without destabilizing the society. Then Marx proceeds to delve on varied form and genre of socialism and capitalism. He declaims Feudal Socialism to be a reactionary socialism which appeared to bow to the proletariat while retaining its quintessentially aristocratic and Christian values and privileges. Petty Bourgeois Socialism was the outcome of the intermediate classes in the developed economies who found it propitious and gainful to hitch their wagon to the proletariat. However, the main shortcoming of the Petty Bourgeois Socialism is that it intends to uphold and revive the old modes of production and the accompanying property relations, without sincerely aligning with the cause of the proletariat. In contrast, the German Socialism though inherited from the French Socialism, tended to be true socialism in the sense that it perceived class struggles in their true color and scope. Bourgeois Socialism tends to partially ameliorate the sufferings of the proletariat to extend and resuscitate the bourgeois interests and vision. Utopian Socialism simply decries the need for proletariat revolution in favor of more peaceful and hence impotent modes of redress. Here again Marx tend to favor a political setup that is totally dominated by a single political ideology. Practically speaking there never ever was such a singular political system or setup in Europe, unless upheld and maintained by coercive means and brutal force, as in the erstwhile Soviet Union. As per Marx, communists are the true custodians of the present and future interests of the proletariat in the sense that the never let the proletariats lose sight of the antagonism existing between them and the bourgeoisie. To put it simply, in Communist Manifesto, the political vision enunciated by Marx though idealistic and sincere is devoid of any pragmatism, realism and practicality. The intense homogenization portrayed by Marx in social, political and cultural aspects, in actuality never existed or will ever exist. Besides, the ploy of Marx to demonize the entire capitalist class and to eulogize communism seems to be more or less fictional and impractical. Moreover, it is never possible for a society to be totally, politically under the domain of one class or political ideology, unless done so by abject force and coercion. Works Cited Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. 1888. 2 December 2011 . Read More