Review of Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels - Essay Example

Introduction Marx and Engel used materialistic conception of history theory to explain how one mode of production evolved into a more advanced mode such as from feudalism to capitalism. They also predicted that in the same way, capitalism would evolve to communism where all private property would be abolished. While feudalism produced the landlords and serfs classes, capitalism on the other hand produced the bourgeoisie and proletarian and these are defined in opposition to each other as they both have conflicting interests, that is, they are antagonistic classes produced by ownership of property by capitalists. This essay will discuss the distinction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, critique of communism and how Marx and Engels idea of class and power relates to Michel Foucault’s discipline and punishment. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argue that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marxists ch1). These classes include: freeman and slave, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman and in modern society or capitalism the bourgeoisie and proletariat. They argued that these classes stood in constant opposition to one another since one class is dominant over the other. The relationship also reflects the class of oppressors and the oppressed. For example, the serfs own the land hence have power over the serfs. In this case, the relations of production are determined by the mode of production. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie own the means of production since they are the property or capital owners while the proletariat own labor power which they sell to the bourgeoisie for a wage to sustain their subsistence. This is because when they were removed from lands, they were separated from their means of production (land) as well the fruits of their production (produce). As such, the produce and labor are owned by the bourgeoisie and the proletarians are just commodities like other commodities in the market to be bought and sold. These bourgeoisies exploit the proletariat by making them produce surplus labor but the surplus value (profit) obtained is only kept by the bourgeoisie; proletariat do not partake in it. It is also the bourgeoisie who constantly develop the forces of production such as machinery to increase productivity hence replacing some proletariat with machines or making them appendages to those machines. This exploitation of one class by another according to Marx and Engels always led to conflicts or antagonisms that “each time ended, either in revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marxists, chp 1). This is how the proletariat will gain consciousness and act collectively to ruin the bourgeoisie class by abolishing private property which is the source of classes and reconstitute society into a classless society called communism. The bourgeoisie differ with proletariat in that they have political power as according to Marx and Engels, “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (chip 1). The ideas of the dominant class in this case are always the ruling ideas hence the proletariat can only overthrow the bourgeoisie when they gain political power through trade unions or collective associations. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto however, make a distinction between the proletariat and the communist. One major difference is that the “communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties” (Marxists, chp 2) while the proletariat stands opposed to the bourgeoisie and they form different combinations locally, nationally and finally internationally. The communists also do not serve interests of a particular group or nation but those of the proletarians as a whole regardless of nationality. Marx and Engels therefore, regard communists as “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others” (ch 2). They also have a clear understanding of the conditions and general results of the proletarian movement which the proletariat does not have. However, the communists and proletariats have the same aim of overthrowing the bourgeoisie through abolition of private property. Marx and Engels also put forward the likely critiques of communism and sought to dispel such thoughts. One major critique is the issue of abolishing private. However, Marx and Engel argue that the property of the lower classes such as small peasants and petty artisans was already destroyed by capitalism hence there is no question about it. As regards the proletariat, they do not have property but only wages for subsistence hence to need to abolish this appropriation of products of labor rather its miserable character whereby labor is exploited to increase capital. What Marx and Engel want to abolish is the property of bourgeois (capital) which creates individualism. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, independence, and freedom is thus the main aim of communism. They argue that capital is a collective product and a social power and by transforming it into common property, it just loses its class character but does not become social property. Furthermore, private property in the society has already been done away with for nine-tenths of population. By abolishing private property, communists with thus be doing away with classes (Marxists, Chp 2). Another objection is that abolishing private property would lead to loss of work and universal laziness. To counter this objection they argued that the bourgeoisie do not work but get everything yet those who work (proletariat) get nothing. As such, this is not a good excuse as bourgeoisie are already lazy. They view all class distinctions or inequalities as resulting from the economic conditions hence only by dealing with these can inequalities be removed. As regards to the issue of family, they argue that capitalism breaks the family as each search for a means of subsistence. In their own words, “children have been transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor” (chp 2). As a result, families only exist in bourgeoisie societies and this family would also vanish in communism. Marx and Engel are also accused of wanting to abolish countries and nationality. To this, they reply that the working men have no country. Instead, they have to constitute the nation and gain political power to be able to overthrow the bourgeoisie. As such, there is no nationality to abolish. Moreover, globalization and free trade have already broken down nationality barriers and the supremacy of the proletariat would even cause them to vanish further. The proletarians organize into national and international associations like the working men association hence eliminating country barriers. It is not communism that will abolish nationalism (Chp 2). Marx and Engel ideas about class and power are related to Michel Foucault’s idea of discipline and punishment. In his book discipline and punishment, Foucault enumerates four regimes that lead to transformation of the individual: torture, punishment, discipline and prison. These regimes represent development from sovereign power to Carceral Archipelago though not in a linear succession of events but complex power networks. This is similar to evolution of capitalism described by Marx and Engels. At first, in the end of 18th century is the monarchical or sovereign power in form of secret trials, public torture and executions (Foucault 26-27). The purpose of the torture was to make the secret trials public and to show its effects through confession and lastly, revenge on the convict’s body. The sovereign thus had power over the convict (55). However, this did not always give desirable results as the public sided with the convict and rebelled against the sovereign. As such a new mode of punishment was developed and which represented a cultural shift. The sovereign aim was to protect the monarchy through torture but a bourgeoisie class w which aimed at protecting its property through codified laws emerged. A new social contract was entered into by society whereby people surrendered their liberty in exchange for removal of torture and execution. Instead, laws defining various crimes and remedies were to be used hence the evolution from torture to punishment which was gentler than executions. In this case, the prisoners were made to do wok equivalent to their crime but in the public eye (58). Just like work was individualized by bourgeoisie in capitalism, Foucault also observed individualization of crime; each crime was to have own punishment. Punishment regime then evolved into discipline due to technological advancement. This was a form of rehabilitation of criminals through control mechanisms such as detention until a convict became docile and obedient (59). The body was no longer to be abused but the mind and soul were to be reformed through training. The last stage was emergence of prisons which became the central means of criminal punishment hence the development of disciplinary careers such a soldier (300). In the end, Carceral Archipelago which is a summation of human science development is put into practice in the society thus completing the evolution process. Both Marx and Foucault shared some insights in that they believed the only way to change society is through social transformation. However, they differed in that Marx and Engels stresses political power for proletariat while Foucault believed in power of knowledge to bring cultural shift. Works Cited Marxists: Marx and Engels: 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party. Web. 24 April, 2014. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of Prison. New York: Random House, 1977. Read More