EMERGING FORMS OF DIVISION OF LABOUR IN MODERN SOCIETY

Industrial Revolution in England provided the base for the development and use of science effectively in the arena of production and this development was carried out in consonance and contradictions with different forms of social changes and social roles of labour in European societies. The face of production started getting changed and a new form of roles were given and taken by people of these societies. The dominant system of that time 'feudal mode of production' started declining and finally decimated after the development of industries. The dependency of the population on land for the livelihood i.e. mostly agricultural activities was taken over by industrial mode of production. The changes in the mode of production was not an isolated phenomenon; it was supplemented by other conditions that provided impetus to the growth of industrialisation and a new 'market' which worked on the improvement of purchasing power of the people and changing consumption behaviour. These initial developments in capitalism were mainly influenced using increasing efficiency in the production through skills and division of works into segments so that one can easily master the art of doing and establishes a scientific and programmed way of doing things.

The development in the intellectual scholarship of that period reinforces the pre-eminence of rationality and reason that influenced the thinkers of modernity in coming days. The arrangements of different institutions by logic and scientific methods paved the way for modern societies in Europe. But this modernity was not isolated phenomena; it was contested by different theories and different thinkers who called for the inherent contradiction in the functioning of economic and political systems. However, some were very optimistic about the future but some showed negation of any possibility of socio-cultural transformation in an emerging mechanised world where capital became omnipotent. Sociology as a discipline postulated an analysis that was different from the economic and philosophical analysis of these conditions. Adam Smith, who in his work Wealth of Nation postulated specialised division of labour as an efficient and effective system for productivity, was celebrated by economists but Marx very poignantly showed how Smith also talked about the crippled state of workers in the era of a specialised division of labour. So, counter-currents to the effective rationalisation thesis was also a very modern phenomena of this period.

The classical sociology of Karl Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber see the development of industrialisation and specialisation in differents ways and present different kinds of future. However, the blueprints for the future society is not present in the work of any of these theorists but their analysis presents an effective framework for studying modern society. The concept of division of labour is present in most of the work of Marx like Economical and Philosophical Manuscript, The German Ideology, Capital, etc. Durkheim dedicated his first work in this domain with the same name. Marx distinguishes between 'Social division of labour' and 'division of labour in manufacture' (Tucker,393). The social division of labour is coming from the different works that the individuals in a society is doing to maintain its social and economic life and the main cause for this is the mode of exchange between different groups of the society. Division of labour in manufacturing was related to breaking down of single work in different parts and workers had to specialise one part of the work and it increased the productivity of industries and appropriation of surplus value became more easy and routine.

Both Marx and Durkheim say that the modern division of labour was possible because of the decimation of old social order. Durkheim says that “the division of labour varies in direct proportion to the volume and densities of societies and if it progresses in a continuous manner over the course of social development it is because societies become regularly denser and more voluminous.”(Durkheim 1986;205). So, for him, an increase in social density is the cause for the specialisation and subsequent development of the division of labour in societies. Further, he says that growth and development of societies necessitate a greater division of labour. So, it is not the instrument whereby that division is brought about; but it is its determining cause(Durkheim 1986;205). The determining cause of the increase in the “moral and social density” is not demography rather it is due to increase in the interactions among the social groups on a permanent basis. So, he agrees with Marx that the locus of specialisation in cities where people from different strata come and converge to go for differentiation of work. Marx gives the example of Northern America and says that Northern states of American Union are more denser than India due to the development of the division of labour despite India having a higher population(Tucker 1978; 393).

Durkheim's work mainly rely on “individual consciousness” and “collective consciousness” and these two things determine the intensity of division of labour in the society. Marx sees individual consciousness being shaped by social strata to which an individual is belonging but Durkheim finds social stratification as the pathological character of society in a phase of transition to modernity that he calls 'anomie'. He views it not as the instrument of exploitation rather a determinant of social solidarity. Durkheim provides a functional analysis of society and he tries to find out the functionality of 'normal', and 'pathological' characters of society. He finds pathological reinforces morality in society and for him, presence of pathology is not a problem as societies collective consciousness through several mechanism will reinforce normal conditions as when any deviant is being punished by law then the 'collective representation' of society in the ritual of execution of punishment forces individuals to submit to the morality of society. Therefore, somehow he is trying to counter the pessimistic views provided by Marx and Ferdinand Tonnies of modern society.

Therefore, he differentiates between pre-modern society and modern society by social solidarity. He says that pre-modern societies were based on a weak sense of personal identity and a strong sense of commonality i.e. collective consciousness and he defines this type of solidarity among the individual as “mechanical solidarity” and the lack of division of labour. But, modern society in contrast is based on a strong sense of personal identity, maintained through the specialised division of labour. So, there is a weaker sense of identification with the community. The specialised division of labour make people dependent on each other and the solidarity in the society is called 'organic solidarity'. The type of punishment changes in the society with the change of social solidarity. Durkheim sees the change in society through the legal lens and says how 'retributive law' of pre-modern society is being replaced by 'restitutive law' in modern societies. In earlier times, repressive sanctions were used because the division of labour was very simple and individuals were similars in their role and status. So, any crime against the individual offended the entire society and also the transcendent so the law were so rigid but with the advent in the complex form of division of labour, the difference between people increased and law became the way to coordinate between differentiating parts of the society and integrating diverse needs and aspirations.

He uses 'co-variance analysis' in the work Division of Labour to find the true cause and effect relation and also to reject those causes that are not related with effects. So, in the chapter The Anomic Division of Labour, he finds two abnormal type of Division of labour. He tries to find out the 'partial breaking of organic solidarity' in the case of commercial crisis and bankruptcies and says that with increasing specialisation of the division of labour, the labour got organised and conflicts between employer and worker increased (Durkheim 1986;292-293). The workers do not like the status is given to them and they do not find any way to identify another status and he defines it forced division of labour. So, the status goes with two other processes of regimentation of worker and the physical separation of the worker from the social environment with the standardisation of working practices which has transformed workers into 'a life less cog'. Marx finds the specialisation of the division of labour alienating and calls for the revolution that will bring “organised division of labour”. The other abnormal form of division of labour is 'anomic division of labour'. If the division of labour does not produce solidarity, then it is because the inter-relationships of organs are not regulated and then it is in the state of anomie. Durkheim finds that the structure of individual consciousness is shaped by roles, norms and morality.  These things produce healthy personality of an individual in the society. Therefore, he does not see the division of labour not so much as a means to class exploitation rather a cause of social solidarity in a societal setting.

Marx and Durkheim see the consequences of the division of labour differently. Marx says that division of labour increases the efficiency of production and productive activities but the surplus accrued through this specialised division of labour is appropriated by those who have control over means of production. So, it increases or intensifies the exploitation of workers by the bourgeois. Also, the differentiation of work between different people destroys the oneness of human being and it alienates individual from the social environment. However, Marx in his work  The Holy Family: A Critique of Critical Criticism writes that those who have control over means of production and have accumulated private property also have self-alienation but they feel satisfied and affirmed in this self-alienation because they experience it as the sign of power and “possess in it the-the appearance of a human existence”(Tucker 1978; 133). Therefore, he writes, “Private property represents the conservative side and the proletariat the destructive side”(Tucker 1978; 134). So, the generation of antagonism starts between these two classes who have conflicting interests and when this worker class will transform itself from “class-in-itself” to “class-for-itself” then the revolution will become pertinent and social change will happen. He, further, tells that division of labour 'dehumanises the working class' as the workers stop being independent goods producers and he becomes the supplier of the labour power. So, the commodification of labour power stripped it of humanness.

However, Durkheim finds all these things product of anomie and says that these are temporary conditions and when the transformation from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity is completed then these conditions will disappear. Therefore, he presents a very optimistic picture of future society. He says that in modern society the specialised division of labour will create individuality but due to differentiation of skills, people will be dependent on each other which will reinforce solidarity in the society. He is visualising division of labour not only as an economic process but also a social process whereas Marx views division of labour based on the economy and he does not see the cultural and other dimensions as the main cause for the development of the division of labour. While Durkheim says that division of labour brings society in equilibrium; Marx finds the human history as the history of class struggles. Contradictions, change and conflicts are the main words in Marx's writing. He finds capitalism as the struggle between capitalists and proletarians. So, only the revolution of the proletariat has the potential to change the society.

 Max Weber in his theory of Bureaucracy talks about the specific role attached to the specific posts through the specification of jurisdictional areas and these areas cannot be changed by the whim of the superiors. He says that increasing rationalisation of society leads to the development of the strict division of labour. This kind of division of labour is manifested through the bureaucratic organisations of the society. His concept of bureaucracy is based on a hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules, achievement based growth, a specialised division of labour, efficiency, etc. The increasing rationalisation of the social world is building greater control of human over nature. Rationalisation, which is the most important element of Weber's theory is identified with the division of labour, bureaucracy and mechanisation. He in the work “Science as Vocation” talks about the notion of progress and says how it is giving rise to 'disenchantment'(Gerth and Mills 1946; 140). Weber's views about the inescapable rationalisation and bureaucratisation have certain similarities with the Marxian notion of alienation. Marx and Durkheim agree that the process of rationalisation has increased the efficiency and effectiveness of production but this has started dehumanising the human itself. But, unlike Marx and Durkheim, he is pessimistic about the future and does not see it a transition period that will transform for better.

In the work of Max Weber, the division of labour in the society came from the inescapable rationalisation. This process of rationalisation changed the face of different domains and created specific kind of knowledge to satiate the need of society. In his work, The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, he talks about the rationalisation of Protestant through the doctrines of Calvinism, which changed the rational means of gaining economic prosperity to deal with salvation anxiety. The Protestants took technical education which helped them to become specialised in their field. They also followed the spirit of rationality in their work to cultivate 'spirit of capitalism' in them. So, the division of labour through a specific process of rationalisation created a differentiation in the society that gave them the feeling of 'disenchantment'. So, Weberian notion of division of labour is different from the work of Durkheim and Weber.

The question of 'reason' and 'rationality' were made central in the phase of modernisation in the 19th and 20th century. Marx and Weber both finds the process of rationalisation is alienating the workers. Weber in Science as Vocation tells that even in the United States, education institutes are run as 'state Capitalist' enterprise where 'the separation of worker is done from the means of production'(Gerth and Mills 1946; 131). Therefore, the employees of a university is as dependent upon the head of the institution as the workers are in case of the factory. So, the life of assistants in these universities become like that of 'quasi-proletarians'. The bureaucratisation of work is dehumanising the workers. But, Weber is very 'deontological' in his analysis of society as he is talking about means and not the ends that differentiate him from Marx, who talks about synchronised means and ends. Therefore, Marx talks about 'communist society' that will be build through 'revolution of working class'.

Further, Weber also talks about the contradictions in a society having a democratic political system and being administered by bureaucratic system. Democratisation does not involve increasing participation of governed but the 'levelling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated group that in its turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form”(Gerth and Mills 1946; 226). He does not see a further democratisation of society rather he sees different kind of socialisation which entails further bureaucratisation. So, the distance between governed and the government is increasing and the sovereign power of the state is becoming illusionary. Here also, he agrees with Marx.Weber says that the term democracy is misleading as the party and every advance of election systems needs more bureaucratisation even at the local level. Therefore, bureaucracy represents precisely what Marx said about 'Hegelian State', 'an artificial embodiment of reason and an illusionary  universal interest, blocking a genuinely rationality, commonality and universality' (Marx CHDS 1975, 60).

Therefore, Weber, Marx and Durkheim give a different kind of analysis of the division of labour. Their thoughts sometimes converge and other times diverge from each other's theory. However, all three thinkers find specialisation of the division of labour problematic for modern society but everyone has a different take on this. Marx says that only revolution can change the pathological character of society while Durkheim says that when the transformation of society from “mechanical solidarity” to “organic solidarity” will complete then these anomic conditions will disappear from the society. However, Weber does not see any light at the end of the tunnel as he finds that there is no way out of this “iron cage” of bureaucracy. So, while Marx transforms the study of the division of labour and gives a call for revolution but he does not give any blueprint for the future societies, which makes it vulnerable to be manipulated by people in power. Immanuel Wallerstein, therefore, says that communist state of USSR did not bring any socio-cultural transformation so it was not a 'revolution' as per se. However, Weber also criticises the Marxian concept of alienation by stating that there is no emancipation from this and the overarching process of rationalisation produces a split between public domain consists of state and capital and individuals separated from means of production. Durkheim's evolutionary analysis postulates that the anomic conditions have to end to maintain the equilibrium of society. This will be possible when individual consciousness will submit to the morality of society and that society will be more stable than previous societies because the connectedness of individuals through very specialised kind of division of labour will not allow to break the rules, norms and customs of the society. Further, he shows changes through the change in the character of law. However, the experience of modern society suggests that Durkheimian analysis is very idealistic in a sense as the reproduction of inequality in the society has become more common in the advanced phases of capitalism.  

Review: Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The communist manifesto. Penguin, 2002.

This book was written at the end of the “age of revolution”. European society was witnessing unprecedented success at its disposal as the industrial production reached astronomical figures, cities grown gigantically, the population was more than any epoch, and the scientific achievements were prodigious.  It was the age, when Prof. Wheatstone of London was planning to connect England with France through submarine electric telegraph. The publication of books in England, USA, France and Germany alone reached in five figures. Millions of people for transport used railway line and means of communication were improving at flashing speed. This was the epoch of the romantic idea of progress. I use the word ‘romantic’ to show the perpetual denial of the existence of ugliest, unhappiest, grim and stinking world parallel to the romantic microcosm of technological and social progress. Engle and Marx, in this work, destroyed the veneer of European civilisation to present an idea, where the revolution was imminent. Their work is based on the idea of human history created by material conditions and pivoted in class antagonism. They start with two premises – a) the spectre of communism is haunting Europe and b) Europe has already recognised communism as a political force. However, the spectre of communism is haunting Europe or not is a matter of investigation.

In 1848, Europe was undergoing political upheaval known as Spring of Nations or Revolution of 1848. It was not only a social revolution in the sense that it mobilised all the social classes rather it was, in the literal sense, the rising of the labouring poor of Central and Eastern European cities (Hobsbawm 1965). They were not merely demanding bread and employment but a new state and society. However, this revolution was put to an end with the use of violence and forceful methods of the established reactionary forces. Nevertheless, it left the mark of manifestation of ideas of liberalism, nationalism, democracy and socialism in Europe. Therefore, there was a pluralistic perception of ‘ideal society’ among the revolutionaries. So, the ‘spectre of communism’ was haunting Europe but with many other spectres different in form and substance. The Marxian notion of social change moves with the paradigmatic change of history. They say that history of all society is the history of class struggles. When Marx talks about class struggles, he is talking about the dialectics in production relationship and the conflict arising out of this dialectics. They provide supremacy to the economic structures in the production of a superstructure. As they say that with the change in the mode of production, efficiency is also increasing. Therefore, for him, History is carved out from class conditions as the artisans carve out a sculpture from raw materials. However, Arendt (1998) says that history is not the product of intended human action rather the product of “unintended effects of contingent human actions” (11). She further writes that the social and political are not much distinct in modern society, as the economic activities of the private realm have moved to the public realm in the modern market economy. Therefore, Marx did not discover the notion of core and superstructure rather accepted this assumption from political philosophy axiomatically as it is impossible to separate the two domains in the modern society (Arendt 1998: 51).

However, Marx finds that the development of the class of bourgeoisie, in the capitalist mode of production simplified the class antagonisms and the society has split into two groups. Therefore, he finds harmony in the relationship among the bourgeoisie, also in the proletariat. But, how this conception of ‘harmony of interests’ came? Classical economists first talked about the harmony of interests in the market. Therefore, it is not the Marx but the classical economists who first gave the notion of “communistic fiction”. The Classical economists’ theory is based on the assumption that there is one, common interest of mass which with the help of “an invisible hand” guides the behaviour of men and produces “harmony of their conflicting relations” (Arendt 1998: 62). Therefore, the concept of homogeneous classes of bourgeoisie and proletariat is based on this assumption. However, there can be a homogeneous class identity in revolutions as we have seen the homogeneous interest of bourgeoisie and other classes in French Revolution but to maintain it is problematic. Therefore, we should not go by Arendt’s (1998) criticism of ‘harmony of class interest’ rather we should see the mechanisms, which enforces the homogeneous class interests in the wake of social revolution to understand how it can be engendered in the post-revolution phase.

Bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development and a series of revolutions in the mode of productions and exchange. Therefore, class-consciousness among proletariat is not given; it will come through a series of movements garnered in the historical development of history and social conditions. Karl Polanyi (1944), in his work “The Great Transformation” has given evidence of these developments in the England starting from the Luddite movements. However, one question remains unanswered in The Communist Manifesto. Will the proletarian movement take the same series of developments in forging “class-for-itself”? This question also relates with the succession of modes of production in our society and its subsequent failure in Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Europe was not a homogeneous entity in industrial production conditions in 1848. Some European countries were far more industrialised than others were. Already, the modern market system was developing a global market and there was a mismatch of resources among nations. Colonising forces were trying to industrialise or to change the mode of production in the ‘backward nations’ of the world. Therefore, there was an implantation of modern modes of production in countries, which had nothing to do with the development of technologies of production. The Mercantilist motives were the main signifier of these developments. Therefore, not every country was going to start industrial production from the scratch. So, it was imminent that some countries might not see the initial mode of protests of proletariat. But, this view is based on the assumption of the relation between technologies of production and protest of the proletariat. Marxian theory was based on the consciousness of proletarian class. However, this consciousness also comes from the material conditions. In this case, the material conditions will be determined by the economic conditions in the Marxian sense, which incorporates technologies of production, labour and capital. Therefore, it can be said that some of the initial modes of protests might be missing in these countries, where the development of the mode of production was not indigenous. But, the succession from the stage at the start to another will be in a series.

The proletarian movements in Russia and China do not follow this linear transformation of the modes of production. It was a severe setback on Marxists and Marxian theorists. Russian revolution did not occur after the complete development of the capitalist mode of production rather it bypassed one of the most important mode of production. However, one explanation for this might be the changing character of capitalism in the later parts of the 19^th century and in the initial parts of 20^th century. The industrial revolution created worst of human condition what the humanity has ever seen. Also, the mechanisation of industry was on very high scale, which in-turn was giving rise to the specialised form of division of labour and the need for specialist were increasing in the industries. The modern forms of education based on the need of industries became the need of industries to create human capital to run the industries efficiently. These specialists created another class among the workers. Further, the socialist revolutions enforced the change in working conditions of workers in the industries. The bourgeoisie felt the need to bring the workers to the table to maintain the conditions of profit accumulation in the wake of rising workers unrest. The development of new machines created conditions to accumulate more profit through the appropriation of less labourer.

With these developments, there was a novel development of modern nation-states in Europe. The state was presented as distinct from the bourgeoisie interest in the common discourse. If there was unemployment in any territory, people were not looking for causes of it in the mode of production rather they were protesting against the state. However, ‘state as an ideology’ was based on bourgeoisie needs, and aspirations and ‘state as an institution’ were created and run by bourgeoisie interests. Therefore, the separation of state and mode of production created an illusion that helped in maintaining the bourgeoisie dominance in the society. Also, since the bourgeoisie had less number of workers at their disposal so it was easy for them to improve the working conditions in the industries. However, the improvement of working conditions should not be construed as the change in the attitude of the bourgeoisie. Their motivation resides only in profit accumulation. However, Marx anticipated some of these trajectories of capitalism but he did not heed on the outcomes of these developments. These measures to arrest some of the “inherent contradictions” of capitalism has nothing to do with the exploitations of workers inherent in the capitalistic mode of production.

This theme of ‘exploitation’, throughout human history, is the kernel of Marxian notion of accumulation of labour power by the bourgeoisie. In the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeoisie has converted every profession into its paid wage-labourers. Marx does not say that doctors and lawyers are getting piddling salaries rather than they have been dehumanised by labour contracts. This ensnarement of them is based on the assumption that in the pre-capitalist mode of productions, there labour had more dignity and respect just as the pre-capitalist labour had more charm. This seems problematic! However, they connect exploitation with ‘alienation’, a concept elaborated in his earlier work Economical and Philosophical Manuscript 1844.

The extensive use of machinery and division of labour had stripped the works of proletarians of all the individual characters. His work is losing individual character and he is getting the wage to reproduce labour. Further, alienation is developing repulsiveness of the work, which is decreasing their wage. Therefore, wage labourers are ensnared in the capitalistic mode of production. This explanation of Marx demonstrates the losing charm of labour in modern times but it does not seem true for the highly skilled labour demanded by the industries. Therefore, Marx’s detachment with the concept of “social mobility” provides an explanation by exaggerating the facts. As, in the capitalistic mode of production, there is certainly a class, which is provided with the option to move upward in the hierarchy through education and other means. However, I will deal with the use of exaggerated instances in this writing in later part of the essay to understand its need in this work.

Therefore, the proletarians have no property, and his relation to family members are different from that of the bourgeoisie. In addition, the bourgeoisie has instilled many of its prejudices for all the members of the society like law, religion, morality etc. Further, the proletarians cannot acquire the productive forces without abolishing their previous mode of appropriation. Hence, they have no option left other than to do revolution because pauperisation has become the general rule. Not only the bourgeoisie but also the state has enslaved them. Bourgeoisie has presented labour contracts as just forms of exchange but it is exploitation cloaked in the hypocritical charade. Marx has explained it in Capital through the concept of the “appropriation of surplus of labour”.

One intriguing question lies beneath all these Marxian conceptions and that is what made the position of the bourgeoisie so strong and proletarians’ so submissive in the capitalistic mode of production? For Marx, the answer lies in the “formation and augmentation of capital” . He writes in “Capital I” that capitalist is “capital personified”. It is the nature of capital, which changed the social conditions in this mode of production.  “Wage labourer rests exclusively on competition between labourers”. Wage labourers cannot appropriate capital as the system is designed in such a way that the workers child can only become workers. This can only be changed through the revolution of proletariat. Marx and Engels have written one part of the book to talk about the goal of the communist revolution; the way it would be done. The main aim of the communist revolution is the “abolition of bourgeoisie property” or in simple terms “abolition of private property”. Further, the communist revolution will not have a universal framework rather it will depend upon the social conditions. The basic reason behind the abolition of private property lies in the fact that property is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labourer.  Capital is not a personal product rather it is the product of collective labour therefore the ownership of capital should be collective. Further, he says that in the communist society, the past will not dominate present unlike the capitalist society. Therefore, all the relations to past will vanquish in the communist society. However, it seems novel development in the human history as the class antagonisms will disappear; there will be harmony in the social relationship; and the bourgeoisie state will diminish.

However, it is unquestionably true that one class exploited another in the human history but in the communistic future, there will be no role of past in social relationship needs an explanation. If Marx had stopped at the fact of exploitation of one class by another, most of his critics had silenced. But, he goes one step further in cutting the role of past from communist society. Because, he is providing a blueprint for an utterly new society and no one had seen this kind of world before. So, his penchant for exaggeration brings him to a melodramatic explanation of present and future. In the present, he finds, melodramatically, only two classes and does not give heed to other classes present in the social strata and in the future, he finds the single desire of whole community. It also raises one question that all people are in the illusion by the charismatic character of capital except Marx. He broke the mental prison of illusion gathered by the collective labour of many generations, which seems somehow prophetic.  Therefore, he uses a rhetorical representation of ‘manifesto’ to rally people around the idea of communism. Further, he does not give detail of the communist society rather than the notion of complete freedom, harmony and tranquillity.

But, we should read this book with the fact in our mind that it was written as a manifesto for the communist party in Europe and any manifesto will use rhetorical and less detailed writing to scatter people’s mind from the problems and assumptions inherent in any description. Ranabir Samaddar (2009) provides the explanation for the use of rhetoric in the political dialogues. Bringing his ideas, in this case, we can say that that there is an asymmetry of power between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the use of rhetoric can accelerate the political deliberations. It does not mean irrational interpretation but simultaneous interpretation of the parallel world’s rhetoric allowing for figurative detail for flexible inquiry. Further, rhetoric also manifests the need for looking beyond everyday negotiation because only then, a revolution is possible. Rhetoric helps the political subjects to discover the practical truths to bring the consciousness of the ‘self’. That is why ambitious orators have threatened social order. Therefore, we can see the use of rhetoric by Marx in the Manifesto rationally as he was not writing for the academic purposes.

The rhetoric are present in this work throughout the book. He uses literary sentences to have a convocation of proletariat across class. He demonises the bourgeoisie rule with the help of rhetoric like “The history of all hitherto society… class struggles”, “no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest”, “the bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation… looked up to with reverent awe” etc.  These ways of putting sentences in the book make people realise and understand the grave situation of the proletariat in the 19^th century European society. This book was written for the Communist Party and any manifesto has the goal of making people adhere ideas presented by the party.

However, some of their sentences seem preposterous and uncalled for in the manifesto. Marx and Engels write that bourgeoisie sees in his wife as mere instruments of production and they exploit it in common. Further, the bourgeoisie are not satisfied with the wives and daughters of proletarians and common prostitutes; they take greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives. So, the bourgeoisie has established “communism of wives”. This was far from the characteristics of the European bourgeoisie in the 19^th century. These proses are not even dryly academic. Therefore, Marx is not above frivolity in the Manifesto.  Despite connecting the capitalist system with deprivation and exploitation, he does not find conditions in pre-capitalist society more humane rather it was as bad if not worse in the capitalist system. But, he also invokes the pre-capitalist values to show how the capitalism has desecrated traditional mores without remorse. So, he does not adhere to anti-nostalgic outlook while at the same time he talks of breaking with the past in the communistic society.

In their idea of the communistic society, there are certain general features applicable to the most advanced countries. They, in general, proposes ten measures. All these ten measures are concentrated to abolish the accumulation of private property in the hands of few like a heavy progressive tax, abolition of all rights of inheritances, confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels, centralisation of credits, means of communication, transport etc. But, who will impose these measures on the population? The manifesto says that it will be done during the “dictatorship of proletariat”. Therefore, they are trying to give scope for the establishment of “Vanguard” during the dictatorship of proletariat. So, the rule of the bourgeoisie will transform into rule by class-conscious Vanguard. Will they go for the next phase of “withering away of state” is a question remain unanswered until contemporary times?

The failure of “political Marxism” in Russia made people disgruntled to the communistic ideology. One main reason for the failure remained in the rule by Vanguard. The Vanguard appropriated all the powers and moved the communistic rule toward totalitarianism especially during the reign of Stalin. The perspicacity of Manifesto lost its remaining charm after the end of the cold war. It was said at that time “all that is solid melts into air”. The polemics of Marx was put upside down and the failure of Marxism became Launchpad for neo-liberalism. Therefore, does the Manifesto have any relevance in the contemporary world after the failure of political Marxism and the socialistic economy? Also, the Marxian theory has changed its character in the academic discourses. Now, the path of emancipation does not seem to lie in any revolutionary tactics poured with violence and blood as the nation-state has become too powerful to crush any movement of this short. Further, with the advent of new means of communication and its increasing role in the modern society has given too much power to the state to indoctrinate people with nationalistic and neo-liberal fervour. However, the socialistic texts of this short have helped the people to negotiate with the state and the corporates to bring some changes in the working conditions. Now, the success of any revolution is dependent upon the participation of the people. However, the class in modern society has fragmented into several classes. Further, the ‘mass culture’ has done reverse enlightenment of people. It is very easy for the state to manufacture consent. 

Despite these limitations, the manifesto has a position of classics in the discipline of Sociology because it tries to portray ‘the human condition’ of the capitalism and displays a complete array of present social arrangements with the face of the monstrous exploiters and the meek and the potential mighty exploited. It demonstrates the cause of the exploitation with passion and responsibility. With certitude by the aphorism, it offers a stylised sketch of the history of human society. Be it in rhetorical phrases, it presents hope for millions of hopeless in this word that there is a world waiting for them and says, “You have nothing to lose but your chains”. The “biblical appeal”, this work garnered for a century and more is not the product of mere rhetoric or farce propaganda rather it was hitting in the position where it hurts most to the exploiters.  These concerns are visible in many writings, films, movements etc. One instance from the 1979 film Pratidwandi

“Interviewer: What would you regard as the most outstanding and significant event of the last decade?

Siddhartha: The… war in Vietnam, sir.

Interviewer: More significant than landing on the moon?

Siddhartha: I think so, sir.”

— “Pratidwandi” (The Adversary), 1970

The protagonist of this film Siddharta is trying to say that the landing on the moon is predictable in the given state of technology but the Vietnam war was “the extra-ordinary power of the resistance” mounted by the poor people of the so called ‘third world”. This does not lie in the state of technology rather in the courage to resist those changes affecting human lives by repressive and irresponsible forces. In these conditions of existence, the Manifesto comes as an enlightenment with hope for the masses to change the repressive, exploitative and remorseless social order for a better future.

References:-

Arendt, Hannah. "The Human Condition, with an introduction by Margaret CANOVAN." Trans. Margaret Canovan. Second ed. London: The U of Chicago P (1998).

Polanyi, Karl. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press, 1944.

Samaddar, Ranabir. Emergence of the political subject. SAGE Publications India, 2009.

Tucker, Robert C., ed. "The Marx-Engels Reader." (1978).