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 19th century and in the
initial parts of 20th 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 19th 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 19th 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).
No comments:
Post a Comment