In What Sense is The Communist Manifesto Pro-capitalist - Term Paper Example

In what sense is The Communist Manifesto pro-capitalist? The Manifesto of the Communist Party of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels of 1848, also known as The Communist Manifesto, has profound influence.1 It has led to the establishment of socialist governments covering billions of people all over the globe. Marxist thinking influenced sociology, economics, political science, and other disciplines of the social sciences. Although The Communist Manifesto is fundamentally anti-bourgeoisie, it recognized that the bourgeoisie had played a positive role in history. Engels in the 1888 English edition of The Communist Manifesto had defined that the bourgeoisie refer to the "class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour". According to The Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role in history but advancements in the forces of production transformed the bourgeoisie from a revolutionary into a reactionary class. In the old feudal order, the feudal relations became incompatible with the emerging forces of production and the feudal relations became obstacles to the development of the productive forces. Based on Lenins interpretation (1918, p. 23-28) of Marxs Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) history progresses in this manner: in humanitys struggle to live, man advances the forces of production that require specific forms of social relations. The forms of social relations aid the continued advancement of the forces of production until new forms of forces of production emerge that require new forms of class relations. By that time, however, the older or current relations of production have outlived their usefulness such that new arrangements of social relationships are required. Social revolutions are essentially calls for changes in the relations of production so the forces of production can continue their advance. Social revolutions are meant to eliminate the old relations of production or class relations that are acting as fetters to the further advancement of the productive forces or forces of production. Thus, revolutions are essentially social actions to establish new social relations that will facilitate the continued advance of the forces of production because current or older social relations have become obstacles or fetters to social and economic development. In Marxism, the forces of production pertain to the material aspects of society while the relations of production refer to social relationships and relationship of men and classes with each other and with the other components of the forces of production (Lenin 1918, p. 23-24). The forces and relations of production constitute the mode of production. In the 1888 introduction to the English version of Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels of 1848, Engels said: "The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms the nucleus belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which it is built up, and from that which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles…" Marx and Engels (1848, p. 4, second paragraph) pointed out that "the bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part". Based on The Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie had played a positive role in history in several ways. First, the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists dissolved the self-sufficiency of the feudal economic order and replaced it with market, product, and geographic interdependence of modern society. The bourgeoisie modernized industry. In turn "modern industry has established the world market" (Marx and Engels 1848, p.4). The bourgeoisie established the world market because "it must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere" (p. 6, 1st paragraph) for profit. For the same reason, the bourgeoisie has given "a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country" (p. 6, 2nd paragraph). The bourgeoisie has caused raw materials to be sought from the farthest regions and products to be sold not only at home but also abroad (p. 6, 2nd paragraph). "In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency," (p. 6, 2nd paragraph), there is now global and national interaction or interaction in every direction. One impact of this is that the "intellectual creation of individual nations became common property" (p. 6, 2nd paragraph). Another impact is that a world literature has emerged (p. 6, 2nd paragraph) that draws every nation, including even the most barbaric, into civilization (p. 6, 3rd paragraph). Second, the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists overthrew the dominance of small-scale production in favour of large-scale capitalist mass production. In the words of Marx and Engels, "the place of manufacture was taken over by the giant, Modern Industry" (1848, p. 4). The bourgeoisie has compelled all nations to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production and created a world after its own image (p. 6, 3rd paragraph). This particular contribution of the bourgeoisie is extremely important because large-scale production makes possible the exploitation of economies of scale in production. Economies of scale make possible lower average production costs thereby benefiting consumers and society. Small-scale production can imply higher management and fixed costs and can be associated with inefficiencies. In contrast, provided markets are large such as a global market, mass production can mean lower fixed, managerial, and average production costs. Elaborating on the matter, Lenin said (1913, p. 3): "By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social---hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism---but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalist." On the other hand, in 1867, Marx elaboration on the dominance of mass production over small-scale production is this (p. 238): "Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by a few, develop, on an ever-extending scale…the cooperative form of labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodological cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into labour only useable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, social labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime." In sum, Marx said that the bourgeoisie is creating the means from which it can die even as the bourgeoisie advance science, technology, and the production process. Third, the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists freed the labour force from feudal control and transformed peasants into "free" labour. Labour became "free" to be available for buying and selling in the market economies established by the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists. Labour became proletarians to constitute "the class of modern labourers who, having no means of production, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live" (Engels footnote on the 1888 English edition as cited by both the online edition and the International Publishers version of The Communist Manifesto). Marx and Engels noted (1848, p. 4, 2nd paragraph) that the manufacturing system took the place of closed guilds. Closed guilds mean that membership in the guilds are restricted. In contrast, labour or the proletarians in a capitalist society are free to exit from and enter a particular skill subject only to the rule that labour will be willing to sell his or her labour time and that capitalist or the bourgeoisie would be free to buy his or her labour time. "Free labour" or labour that is allowed to freely enter or exit from industries based on available bidders for their services allow labour to move into industries where both offers to labour and returns to capital are high as well move out from industries where both offers to labour and returns to capital are low. Fourth, the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists reorganized labour: division of labour used to be in terms of corporate guilds but the requirement of modern industry required the division of labour to take place at the shop level (Marx and Engels 1848, p. 4, 2nd paragraph). The reorganization of labour destroyed the monopoly of the closed guilds in providing labour for industry (Marx and Engels 1848, p. 4). As discussed earlier, closed guilds mean that membership in the guilds are decided upon by guild organizations and, possibly, with a go-signal from authorities. Division of labour at the shop level imply that specialization will be possible at the shop and industry levels. This particular contribution of the bourgeoisie in improving the production process probably made possible the shortening of the learning curve for skills and promoted both efficiency and improvements in product quality. Fifth, the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists advanced or modernized technology. The bourgeoisie has subjected natures forces, promoted the application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, and popularized the use of machinery, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of large land areas for cultivation, and canalization of rivers (Marx and Engels 1848, p. 7, 3rd paragraph). The drive for capitalist profit as well as the need to survive in a capitalist competition drives a capitalist or business to invest in technological development. Technological innovations can also mean permanent or temporary monopolies and the possibility of rent or above normal or above competitive market profits. Describing a key point of The Communist Manifesto several years after or in 1875 (p. 326), Marx affirmed that the bourgeoisie is a "revolutionary class", being the bearer of large-scale industry. Sixth, the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists accumulated and organized capital, invested, and accelerated economic development. According to The Communist Manifesto or Manifesto of the Communist Party, the bourgeoisie "has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together" (p. 7, 2nd paragraph). Such is not possible or difficult to achieve in feudal order where each feudal local authority maintained a turf and controlled both labour and capital mobility, making difficult or impossible the organization of large investments. Of course, the economic development under capitalism took place at an accelerated speed as hiring of labour became possible and as restrictions, moral or otherwise, are removed or liberalized on reinvestments and borrowings. Seventh, according to The Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie, wherever it got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitiless torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his natural superiors" (p. 5, 3rd paragraph). While there is a negative dimension in the aforementioned Marx and Engel assessment, its positive component highlights the role of the bourgeoisie in destroying social relations based on the false concepts of natural rulers and subordinates. The drawback, however, is that Marx and Engels (1848, p. 5) also pointed out that relations between people has been reduced to "cash relations". Eighth, according to The Communist Manifesto or Manifesto of the Communist Party, the bourgeoisie "has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades" (p. 5, 6th paragraph). The bourgeoisie created large cities and rescued a big part of the population from the "idiocy of rural life" (p. 6, 4th paragraph). Ninth or last, according to The Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie concentrated population and centralized production that consequently led to political centralization (Marx and Engels 1848, p. 6, last paragraph): one nation, one government, one code of laws, and one customs tariffs (p. 7, 1st paragraph). Thus, from the perspective of Marx and Engels, the birth of nations are associated with the interest of the bourgeoisie to consolidate territories for exploitation as sources of raw materials and market for modern industries owned by the bourgeoisie. Related with this, Engels (1892, p. 391) described the French Revolution as a "third uprising" of the French bourgeoisie to highlight an important contribution of the bourgeoisie in the revolution and to highlight as well the role of the bourgeoisie in inspiring similar democratic revolutions worldwide. Interpretations of latter-day Marxists on The Communist Manifesto concur on the initial positive role of capitalists or bourgeoisie. Among the said Marxists are Marxists belonging to Marx-inspired "liberation movements" in third world countries. Typically, liberation movements in third world countries conceive of a transition phase before a full-blown socialism can be implemented. In China, the revolutionary movement of Mao Zedong called the phase as a new democracy or peoples republic where there would be a joint dictatorship of the progressive classes over the "peoples enemies" composed of the big landlord class, "comprador bourgeoisie", and "imperialism". The "progressive classes" include the "left" and "middle" wing of the bourgeoisie or the petty and middle bourgeoisie. The middle bourgeoisie is sometimes referred to as the "national bourgeoisie" or the bourgeoisie that is directly affected by monopoly capitalism. Under a transitory society prior to a full-blown socialism (which is not equal to communism because communism implies a "withering away of the state" and a condition in which men has been supposedly been transformed to have become unselfish proletarians), the bourgeoisie will be tapped to help develop the "forces of production" or accelerate its development. It is also highly likely that current trends in market liberalization among socialist countries have been justified based on the positive role of the bourgeoisie in history as articulated by the Marx and Engels perspective. Authorities in the socialist countries may have assessed that their countries are lagging behind the developed countries. Thus, they can justify toleration for the bourgeoisie based on the dictums of Marx and Engels even as the authors have said that the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie was only preliminary and that the role of the bourgeoisie had already become negative not positive during their era. In summary, The Communist Manifesto asserted that the bourgeoisie or modern capitalists had played a revolutionary role in society but it has become a fetter to the advancement of productive forces or that the relations of production represented by capitalism is now a fetter to the development of the forces of production. Latter day Marxists are using the teachings of Marx and Engels on the bourgeoisie by prescribing either transitory phase in the movement to socialism or via advocacy for liberalizing the socialist economy, opening up to trade and investments, and welcoming economic liberalization and globalization. In many instances, in both the old the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR, now defunct) and China, socialist authorities have tolerated the existence of the bourgeoisie and allowed capitalist enterprise and investments. References Engels, F., 1892. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. English Edition. In: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected works in one volume, New York: International Publishers, 1968 (1980 Printing), 379-467. Lenin, N., 1913. The three sources and three component parts of Marxism. In: Lenin---Karl Marx and his teaching. Moscow: Progress Publishers (1977 Printing). Lenin, N., 1918. Karl Marx (A brief biographical sketch with an exposition of Marxism). In: Lenin---Karl Marx and his teaching. Moscow: Progress Publishers (1977 Printing). Marx, K., 1867. Historical tendency of capitalist accumulation. In: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected works in one volume, New York: International Publishers, 1968 (1980 Printing), 235-237. Marx, K., 1875. Critique of the Gotha Programme. In: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected works in one volume, New York: International Publishers, 1968 (1980 Printing), 315-335. Marx, K. and Engels, F., 1848. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Translated from German by Samuel Moore in 1888 (ed. Fredrick Engels). Available from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf [Accessed 23 January 2010]. Marx, K. and Engels, F., 1848. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected works in one volume, New York: International Publishers, 1968 (1980 Printing), 31-63. Read More