The Communist Manifesto Review
Jack Perry
One may perhaps view any discussion of Marx and Engels’ 1848 publication as a wasted act:
after all, Marx’s communist ideas are nowadays practiced in very few nations around the
world. It is over twenty years since the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and its
satellites collapsed; even many nations which are still allegedly communist – like China –
have allowed free market forces to operate in the economy.1 Marx’s theories and his
Manifesto in particular would appear, therefore, obsolete: they were an experiment which
has failed; communism does not work.
However, what is so notable about reading The Communist Manifesto – particularly its first
section – is how relevant it feels. This is perhaps because this first section – the largest of
the four chapters – is less a propagandistic promotion of communism and more an
insightful, perceptive critique of the capitalist system, a system which existed long before
Marx first put pen to paper and a system we still have today. Indeed, considering the
economic climate that this capitalist system has plunged the western world into, perhaps it
is time to revaluate and reassess the Manifesto.
In fact, although much of the vocabulary is no longer in use outside of Marxist circles –
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat being the most obvious examples – many of the themes Marx
discusses are being regurgitated by economists and politicians today, such as exploitation,
globalisation and “boom and bust.” It is Marx’s critique of these within the capitalist system
which makes the Manifesto so relevant and so engaging.
Exploitation appears to be Marx’s main revulsion with capitalism: capitalism belittles the
professionals to the point of them becoming “wage-slaves”. This is perhaps not an obvious
criticism, though it no doubt appears to be true today: there is very rarely a teacher, doctor
or lawyer who is not working under some sort of bureaucrat or capitalist with little
enthusiasm for the profession and a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for the acquisition
of money. Perhaps Marx’s assertion that families exist purely for economic reasons lacks
weight due to the amount of people today who do not have a family or indeed are not
married. However, to think that Marx’s ideas of exploitation were somewhat echoed in Ed
Miliband’s 2011 Labour Party Conference speech suggests exploitation is still a major point
of controversy in the capitalist system and Marx was very shrewd in noticing it.2
1
China’s Socialist Economy, Macrohistory And World History, http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch37-econ6.htm,
accessed 30/10/12
2
Ed Milliband, Labour Party 2011 Conference Speech, accessed on New Statesman,
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/09/britain-values-government-work, accessed 30/10/12
1
Equally, on the surface globalisation does not appear to be the problem Marx views it as:
the growing number of products available and the technological advances as more
competitors enter the market is surely one of capitalism’s – if you will excuse me – selling
points. However, in the Manifesto Marx advances an argument which is both compelling
and inclusive. “Raw materials drawn from the remotest zones” he says, a statement which
probably has most prescience in the green lobby today. Furthermore, he identifies the fact
that capitalism causes a “universal inter-dependence of nations.” Although he does not go
into any further detail regarding this point, Marx is particularly perceptive in identifying it as
a problem, and it is a problem which is more than evident today. Take David Cameron’s
recent trip to the Gulf States, which highlighted the willingness of Britain to sell weaponry to
unethical states because of its dependence on oil in that area.3 Marx’s argument against
capitalism becomes more compelling the more one examines it.
Perhaps Marx’s most prescient complaint with capitalism is his identification of “boom and
bust” or, as he puts it, the “periodical return” of economic crises as a result of the capitalist
system. This above all is the criticism which feels most relevant today; it is perfectly obvious
that the west is currently facing the bust which followed the boom of the early 2000’s.
Marx’s complaints will therefore no doubt resonate with many readers today; his critique of
the capitalist system is nigh-faultless, and he forms a compelling argument within the
confines of very little space.
From this firm grounding, however, Marx begins to lose his way. This is not purely due to his
vision of how to remedy the capitalist system, but also the aggressive tone he begins to
take, both of which only alienate and deter those readers who are not already passionate
communists.,
I suppose it is easy to criticise Marx’s proposed communist ideas due to the overwhelming
evidence that his prescribed remedies do not work. Although many of his ideas were well
ahead of their time and are used in mixed economies today (abolition of child labour should
have been a no-brainer to anybody; centralisation of transport is a policy liberal
democracies) several have been proved to be a step too far: the abolition of private
property results in the lack of any meritocratic reward for your efforts; the confiscation of
property from “rebels” is very much a dictatorial, authoritarian suggestion. This is one of the
ways Marx appears to alienate those readers who are not already ardent followers.
This alienation may also be due to the prevailing aggressive tone of the piece. The way in
which Marx writes is in stark contrast to John Locke or J. S. Mill. While these political
philosophers take a measured, non-hostile approach when putting forward their argument,
Marx takes a much more aggressive approach. Perhaps due to the speed at which he had to
write it, or perhaps due to the fact that he wrote the Manifesto as a propagandistic piece,
3
The Independent, 6 November 2012
2
his argument feels hastened and rushed; the argument feels forced by the sheer aggression
of the way he writes.4
This is perhaps most evident in chapter three of the Manifesto, in which Marx attempts to
deride all forms of communism except for his own. He labels feudal socialism, for example,
as “half lamentation, half lampoon” with very little evidence to support his assertion. This
rubbishing of other forms of communism and socialism undermines Marx’s previous
argument against capitalism; the Manifesto becomes to seem less a critique of a system of
exploitation, and more one man’s own narrow view presented in a dogmatic, aggressive
manner. While one can see how this may appeal to Marxists, this hostile presentation of
ideas only alienates the reader and muddies the author’s message.
The Communist Manifesto is therefore a fantastic critique of capitalism lost among a
propagandistic, aggressive worldview. Marx lays down a well-crafted base to build his
argument upon but then appears to try to alienate his entire readership apart from the
most ardent communist. This is a particular shame because his critique of capitalism is one
of the best – and still one of the most relevant – to date.
Bibliography:
Marx, K. and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Oxford: New York, 2008).
China’s Socialist Economy, Macrohistory And World History,
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch37-econ6.htm, accessed 30/10/12
Miliband, Ed, Labour Party 2011 Conference Speech, accessed on New Statesman,
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/09/britain-values-government-work,
accessed 30/10/12
Mill, J. S., On Liberty And Other Essays (Oxford: New York, 2008).
Locke, John, The Second Treatise Of Government, accessed at Project Gutenberg,
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/ 7370-h/7370-h.htm#CHAPTER_VIII, accessed at
several times between 10/10/12 and 10/11/12.
The Independent, 6 November 2012
4
, David McLellan, ‘Introduction’, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (Oxford: New
York, 2008)
3
Wolff, Jonathon, An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Oxford: New York, 2006)
4