Communist ManifestoExecutive summary The bulk of the analysis of the Manifesto is in the first two sections. A third section critically examines other forms of socialism. This is shorter than the others, and there is a tendency to see it as less important. However, what it demonstrates is that Marxism had to compete with a variety of other socialist theories and movements. In 1848 it did not seem that Marx and Engels had succeeded. TheManifestodid not influence any of the revolutions of that year. TheManifestoseemed doomed to oblivion. Yet in 1888 Engels claimed that it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the most international of all Socialist literature. [F. Engels, preface to 1888 English edition of Karl Marx and Freidrich EngelsThe Communist Manifesto(Penguin, 1967) p.61] TheCommunist Manifestostarts with the famous words "The history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles," and proceeds in the next 41 pages to single-mindedly elaborate this proposition (79). In section 1, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," Marx delineates his vision of history, focusing on the development and eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie, the dominant class of his day. Before the bourgeoisie rose to prominence, society was organized according to a feudal order run by aristocratic landowners and corporate guilds. With the discovery of America and the subsequent expansion of economic markets, a new class arose, a manufacturing class, which took control of international and domestic trade by producing goods more efficiently than the closed guilds. With their growing economic powers, this class began to gain political power, destroying the vestiges of the old feudal society which sought to restrict their ambition. According to Marx, the French Revolution was the most decisive instance of this form of bourgeois self-determination. Indeed, Marx thought bourgeois control so pervasive that he claimed that "the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (82). This bourgeois ascendancy has, though, created a new social class which labor in the new bourgeois industries. This class, the proletariat, "wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live," are the necessary consequence of bourgeois modes of production (79). As bourgeois industries expand and increase their own capital, the ranks of the proletariat swell as other classes of society, artisans and small business owners, cannot compete with the bourgeois capitalists. Additionally, the development of bourgeois industries causes a proportional deterioration in the condition of the proletariat. This deterioration, which can be slowed but not stopped, creates within the proletariat a revolutionary element which will eventually destroy their bourgeois oppressors. As Marx says, "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers" (94). In Chapter 2, "Proletariats and Communists," Marx elaborates the social changes communists hope to effect on behalf of the proletariat. Marx notes firstly that the interests of communists do not differ from the interests of the proletariat as a class; they seek only to develop a class consciousness in the proletariat, a necessary condition of eventual proletariat emancipation. The primary objective of communists and the revolutionary proletariat is the abolition of private property, for it is this that keeps them enslaved. Bourgeois economics, i.e., capitalism, requires that the owners of the means of production compensate workers only enough to ensure their mere physical subsistence and reproduction. In other words, the existence of bourgeois property, or capital as Marx calls it, relies on its radically unequal distribution. The only way the proletariat can free itself from bourgeois exploitation is to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat will destroy all remnants of bourgeois culture which act to perpetuate, if even implicitly, their misery. This includes family organization, religion, morality, jurisprudence, etc. Culture is but the result of specific material/economic conditions and has no life independent of these. The result of this struggle will be "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all" (104).Chapter 3, "Socialist and Communist Literature," encompasses Marx's discussion of the relationship between his movement and previous or contemporaneous socialist movements. In this chapter he repudiates these other movements for not fully understanding the significance of the proletarian struggle. They all suffer from at least one of 3 problems: 1) They look to previous modes of social organization for a solution to present difficulties. 2) They deny the inherent class character of the existing conflict. 3) They do not recognize that violent revolution on the part of the proletariat is the only way to eradicate the conditions of oppression. Only the Marxist communists truly appreciate the historical movement in which the antagonism between the proletariat and bourgeois is the final act.The final chapter, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties," announces the communist intention to "everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things" (120). The communist contribution to this ongoing revolutionary discourse will be the raising of the property question, for any revolutionary movement which does not address this question cannot successfully rescue people from oppression. As Marx thunders in conclusion, "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (121).

2. IntroductionKarl Marx (1818-1883) is known as the father of Marxism, but he is also the most frequency cited scholar during the last two decades of the Sodal Sdcm'c Citation Index. His writings are typical of the mid-19th century: they are scholarly, turgid, and lengthy. Marx devoted his scholarly and political life to a critique of capitalism. He believed that people cannot develop their full human capacity within a capitalist system because most individuals are alienated from their work. For Marx, as with Spencer, private property is a critical element in the development of societies, but in contrast to Spencer, Marx felt that private property was linked with alienation. A vital component of Marx's argument concerned the link between the ownership of the mode of production and the class struggle in capitalist society. Marx and Engels worked on the Communist Manifesto during the period of political and social upheavals in Europe during the year 1848. They believed, wrongly we now know, that the liberal capitalist states of Europe might be overturned rather easily and converted to communist societies. The Communist Manifestowas a product of the social, economic and political turmoil that characterized Europe before 1850. Both of its authors, Marx and Engels, were touched by elements of this turmoil. Karl Marx, born in 1818, came from the Rhineland, an area occupied by the French during the Napoleonic Wars. During this period the French abolished feudal restrictions, introduced religious toleration and secularised the state. Many, like Marxs father, benefited from this liberal regime. When, after Napoleons defeat, the Rhineland passed under Prussian control, Hirschel Marx, Karls father, abandoned Judaism for Christianity to retain the right to practise as a lawyer. Friedrich Engels, born in 1820, came from a family of German industrialists: he had, therefore, first-hand knowledge of the effects of rapid industrialisation. In 1842 Engels moved to Manchester to work at the family cotton mill. This took him to the heart of the worlds first industrial nation.3. Origins of the Manifesto Like many young Germans, Marx and Engels were profoundly influenced by the German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831). Confronted by the upheavals of the French Revolution, he developed a theory of history that explained change. This was Hegels dialectic. Throughout history, he argued, there was an interaction of ideas (the dialectic) that led to change. This was expressed as a thesis (original idea) conflicting with an antithesis (new idea) to produce a third idea, a synthesis, different from either thesis or antithesis. A concrete example of this process was his belief that the conflict between the absolute freedom of post-revolutionary France and the absolute monarchy of Prussia had led to the synthesis that was the 19th-century Prussian state. This was a state where citizens enjoyed greater freedoms than in the past, but where, unlike in France, freedom consisted of accepting ones duty to obey the state.Hegelianism could, however, be interpreted in two ways. The Prussian state saw it as confirming its legitimacy, believing that Hegel had argued that Prussia represented an ideal state at the end of history. Against this, German radicals, the Young Hegelians, stressed the dynamic element of Hegels philosophy and argued that the Prussian state was simply one stage of an on-going historical process, or dialectic. This perspective provided a philosophical justification for demands for greater political freedom and social reforms. Independently, both Marx and Engels gravitated towards the Young Hegelians.When Marx left University in 1841, his radical opinions prevented him from taking up an academic career, and so he turned to journalism. By 1842 he was editor of theRheinische Zeitung. This experience led Marx to question the validity of Hegels stress on the importance of ideas (Idealism). The practical problems that he confronted opened up the possibility that it was the physical conditions of life that brought about historical change. At the same time Engels British experience was moving him towards materialism. In his 1845 work, The Condition of the Working Class in England, he argued that The condition of the working class is the real basis and point of departure of all social movements [Frederick EngelsThe Condition of the Working Class in England(Panther, 1969) p.18]Collaboration between Marx and Engels began in Paris in 1844. Marx had gone there, following the suppression of theRheinische Zeitung, to edit theDeutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher. Paris also attracted him because it was the centre of Europes revolutionary tradition, and it gave him the opportunity to meet French socialists. While there he embarked on an intensive course of study which resulted in his final rejection of Idealism. States were not shaped by ideas, he decided, but by the material interests of the dominant groups in society. Hence in a capitalist society the state will embody the values of the capitalist. From this it followed that society could only be changed by a grouping with no material stake in it. This, according to Marx was the working class.In 1844 Engels wrote an article for theDeutsch-Franzosiche Jahrbucherwhich accorded very well with Marxs developing viewpoint. When Engels visited Paris they established a life-long partnership. Initially they worked on clarifying their philosophical views, producing works such asThe German Ideology. In 1847 they made contact with and joined an organisation of working-class German exiles, the League of the Just. A number of changes made at the 1847 congress of the League indicate their growing influence within it. The name, for example, was changed to the Communist League. In the aftermath of these changes, Marx and Engels were invited to draft a statement of aims. This was the genesis of The Communist Manifesto.

4. The message of the Manifesto The Manifesto, primarily Marxs work, is a short accessible document providing the clearest outline of Marxist principles available. Marx produced a useful summary of its main points in 1852:What I did that was new was to prove (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to classless society. [Karl Marx, letter to J. Weydemeyer, 5th March 1852 inKarl Marx, Frederick Engels Selected Works Vol.1(Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977) p.528.]Marxs comments are significant because they indicate what he saw as important in the Manifestoand, at the same, they provide a useful starting point for a consideration of the work.Marxs comments are significant because they indicate what he saw as important in the Manifestoand, at the same; they provide a useful starting point for a consideration of the work.The opening sentence of theManifestostates: The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. It goes on to argue that the nature of that class struggle varies according to the nature of the principal form of production. Hence in feudal societies, where the main form of production was agriculture, the class struggle was between those who owned the land and those who worked on it, between, that is, the lord and the serf. However, Marx had learnt from Hegel that history was not static, and he argued that out of this conflict emerged a third class, the bourgeoisie. These were people who had left agriculture to concentrate on manufacture and commerce. Over time, stimulated by the global expansion of the 18th century, the bourgeoisie reached a point where its further progress was inhibited by the priorities of the feudal state. In 18th-century France, for example, the bourgeoisie provided a disproportionate share of taxation and had to endure a large number of controls and restrictions on commerce. This conflict culminated in the French Revolution of 1789, where the bourgeoisie rose up and destroyed the aristocracy and the feudal state.Within bourgeois societies class conflict still continued, but now the contest was between the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, primarily in the form of industrial factories, and the proletariat or working class, which owned nothing except its ability to work. This conflict flowed from what Marx saw as the contradictions of bourgeois society. Capitalism, the name that Marx used for the economies developed by the bourgeoisie, was a profit-driven system that was forced constantly to expand. This it did by creating a global market, dividing labour processes into simpler and simpler tasks, and deploying new technology.At the same time all relationships were reduced to a question of cash; labour became a commodity to be bought and sold at the market rate. The mechanization and simplification of labor processes, which reduced the need for skilled workers, tended, according to Marx, to reduce wages to the lowest possible level. So, as the ability to produce goods expanded more rapidly than ever before, particularly in Britain, the ability of the proletariat to enjoy the benefits of that expansion declined. Capital, the wealth created by capitalism, was, Marx argued, the product of the proletariats labour, but its benefits were enjoyed, as private property, principally by the bourgeoisie.Capitalism suffered from further problems in Marxs view, like crises of over-production. These occurred not because more goods had been produced than could be used, but because there were not enough people to buy them at prices that would sustain profits. This was the product of a contradiction between societys capacity to produce goods and the social organisation that regulated the distribution of goods. Just as the feudal state blocked the advance of bourgeois commercial interests so in the 19th century, Marx contended, bourgeois society prevented the full benefits of industrialisation reaching the population at large. This contradiction was the basis of the revolution that would lead to the rule, or dictatorship, of the proletariat.Marxs view of history is a materialist version of the Hegelian dialectic (and hence is often called dialectical materialism), where the conflict is between social classes not ideas. Like Hegel, Marx points to the possibility of the end of history. This will be initiated by the proletarian revolution that will overthrow the bourgeoisie. Marx is not very specific about the nature of this revolution, although he does predict despotic inroads on the rights of property. Marx saw such measures as part of a process that would lead to the national control of all industry. Once that had occurred the unequal distribution of goods that had characterised previous societies would also disappear. Material plenty, created by a modern industry controlled for the benefit of society as a whole, would also ensure the disappearance of class conflict, and without such conflict historical change, would, in his view, cease. But the end of old-style history (with its inequality, exploitation and alienation) would be the beginning of a new history (of human freedom and fulfillment).5. Components of Communist manifestoMainly divided into four major chapters Bourgeois and Proletarians Proletarians and Communists Socialist and Communist Literature Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

Bourgeois and Proletarians In this chapter, Marx famously states'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles'. The chapter lays out the position that the bourgeois, through competition and private ownership of land, are forever exploiting and oppressing theproletariat(working class). Marx then states that the system always results in class conflict and revolution, and should be replaced by communism -- a society without class distinctions. TheCommunist Manifestobegins with Marx's famous generalization that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (79). Marx describes these classes in terms of binary oppositions, with one party as oppressor, the other as oppressed. While human societies have traditionally been organized according to complex, multi-membered class hierarchies, the demise of feudalism affected by the French Revolution has brought about a simplification of class antagonism. Rather than many classes fighting amongst themselves (e.g. ancient Rome with its patricians, knights, plebeians, and slaves), society is increasingly splitting into only two classes: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. Proletarians and CommunistsMarx begins this chapter by declaring that communists have no interests apart from the interests of the working class as a whole. Communists are distinguished from other socialist parties by focusing solely on the common interests of all workers and not the interests of any single national movement. They appreciate the historical forces that compel the progress of their class and help lead the proletariat to fulfill their destiny. As Marx says, "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" (95).This chapter explains the relationship between the communist party and other working parties, stating that the communist parties would not organize against them. The chapter also declares the intention of the party to focus on the interests of the proletariat as whole, and not any particular group. This section of the manifesto also clarifies the main points of the communist platform, which includes the following ten short term demands: Abolishing ownership of all private property, Establishing system of heavy taxation Abolishing the right to inherit Centralizing credit and establishment of a state bank Centralizing communication and transport with the state Confiscating all emigrant and rebel property Extending the means of production to the state Equalizing liability to all levels of labor Combining agriculture and manufacturing industries Establishing free public education system

Socialist and Communist LiteratureIn this section Marx explores the evolution of European socialism up to his own day. Not surprisingly, he charges all previous movements with theoretical and practical inadequacy while hailing his own communist alternative as the best expression of a shared concern with the working-class.I. Reactionary SocialismA. Feudal SocialismThis was the earliest form of socialism. It was developed by aristocrats who were opposed to the social changes brought about by the expanding bourgeoisie. Rather than focusing on their own plight, though, they trumpeted the concerns of working classes. Marx repudiates these feudal socialists for ignoring the fact that they were exploiters too when they were in power. Most importantly, though, they had no appreciation of historical progress. They did not understand that the bourgeoisie were their own offspring as the proletariat are the offspring of the bourgeoisie. Their primary concern was in reinstating the old feudal order, and they thus objected to both the bourgeoisie and proletariat insofar as each threatened to destroy previous social systems. Marx also identifies feudal socialism with Christian socialism, remarking that "Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" (108).B. Petty-Bourgeois SocialismAs Marx has noted in earlier chapters, bourgeois dominance increasingly divides society into two classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat. There still exists a third class, though, which constantly fluctuates between bourgeoisie and proletariat, the petty-bourgeoisie. Increasingly, though, this class in being assimilated into the proletariat as society becomes more urbanized and reliant on industrial production. Petty-bourgeois socialism arises from this class, but holds up the standard of the proletariat, with whom the bourgeoisie are a shared enemy. Marx credits this school of socialism with "dissect[ing] with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production," but ultimately upbraids them for wanting to reinstate old social formations. They do not see that the answer to bourgeois exploitation is to develop the proletariat into a revolutionary class rather than to return the worker to the country and renew a failed feudalism.C. German or 'True' Socialism:German Socialism began as a response to French socialist literature. These early socialists, though, did not appreciate that the French ideas grew out of a social environment which did not exist yet in Germany. Unlike the French bourgeoisie, the German bourgeoisie had barely begun their struggle against feudalism and there was no proletariat to speak of. As socialism lacked practical significance for Germany, German thinkers universalized the French ideas, raising them to the status of immutable laws of human Reason, transcending the narrow concerns of any particular class. Those who championed these ideas in the political area forgot that they were developed for a society different from their own; the result of this premature valorization of socialistic values was a hardening of aristocratic resistance to the bourgeoisie. This has slowed the progress of industrialization and kept Germany less developed economically than France. While the political rhetoric of this movement has earned it many admirers, its lack of class character and its decrying of violent revolution make it weak and ineffectual.II. Conservative, or Bourgeois, SocialismThis is the form of socialism practiced by those sections of the bourgeoisie who wish to reform their class rather than destroy it. They want to enjoy the social developments which their economic and political supremacy has affected, but they do not want to accept the necessary consequences of that development, a suffering and revolutionary proletariat. They beg for social harmony yet refuse to realize that the exploitation of the masses will not end until their form of society has been vanquished. To this end, they simply prolong the misery of the proletariat and stand in the way of historical progress.III. Critical-Utopian Socialism and CommunismThe first great expositors of Socialism and Communism (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, etc.) appeared very early in the bourgeois epoch. Accordingly, they did not fully appreciate the character of the proletariat as the revolutionary class, the vehicle of historical action. For them the proletariat was merely the locus of social misery, the class most in need of assistance. Their primary concern was with the well-being of society as a whole and they directed their entreaties to those who they thought could effect change, those already in power. Change was to occur peacefully from above rather than violently from below. Their critical faculties, though, extended to all portions of society and have helped the working classes focus their own struggle. The visions of society that they propose, though, are Utopian to the point of being fantastical. Notably, as class antagonism develops, their suggestions become more far-fetched and less inspiring. They want to abolish class conflict without abolishing the conditions for the existence of classes. At the moment of revolution, then, they become reactionary, resisting the inevitable emancipation of the exploited masses for which they originally toiled.

Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition PartiesIn this final chapter Marx recapitulates the immediate political aims of Communism. He identifies allied parties in various European states, noting that while communists support all working-class parties, they always stay focused on the long-term interests of the proletariat as a whole. Importantly, Marx claims that Germany is the chief focus of Communist interest because while the bourgeoisie in Germany have not yet achieved victory over the aristocracy, the proletariat there is more developed than it was when either the French or English bourgeoisie won their independence. The result of this is that the proletariat revolution will arrive first in Germany. Despite this focus, Communists will support any and all revolutionary movements which advocate the abolition of private property and advance the interests of the proletariat. As Marx powerfully concludes, "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

SummaryTheCommunist Manifestoopens with the famous words "The history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles," and proceeds in the next 41 pages to single-mindedly elaborate this proposition (79). In section 1, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," Marx delineates his vision of history, focusing on the development and eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie, the dominant class of his day. Before the bourgeoisie rose to prominence, society was organized according to a feudal order run by aristocratic landowners and corporate guilds. With the discovery of America and the subsequent expansion of economic markets, a new class arose, a manufacturing class, which took control of international and domestic trade by producing goods more efficiently than the closed guilds. With their growing economic powers, this class began to gain political power, destroying the vestiges of the old feudal society which sought to restrict their ambition. According to Marx, the French Revolution was the most decisive instance of this form of bourgeois self-determination. Indeed, Marx thought bourgeois control so pervasive that he claimed that "the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (82). This bourgeois ascendancy has, though, created a new social class which labor in the new bourgeois industries. This class, the proletariat, "wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live," are the necessary consequence of bourgeois modes of production (79). As bourgeois industries expand and increase their own capital, the ranks of the proletariat swell as other classes of society, artisans and small business owners, cannot compete with the bourgeois capitalists. Additionally, the development of bourgeois industries causes a proportional deterioration in the condition of the proletariat. This deterioration, which can be slowed but not stopped, creates within the proletariat a revolutionary element which will eventually destroy their bourgeois oppressors. As Marx says, "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. In Chapter 2, "Proletariats and Communists," Marx elaborates the social changes communists hope to effect on behalf of the proletariat. Marx notes firstly that the interests of communists do not differ from the interests of the proletariat as a class; they seek only to develop a class consciousness in the proletariat, a necessary condition of eventual proletariat emancipation. The primary objective of communists and the revolutionary proletariat is the a bolition of private property, for it is this that keeps them enslaved. Bourgeois economics, i.e., capitalism, requires that the owners of the means of production compensate workers only enough to ensure their mere physical subsistence and reproduction. In other words, the existence of bourgeois property, or capital as Marx calls it, relies on its radically unequal distribution. The only way the proletariat can free itself from bourgeois exploitation is to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat will destroy all remnants of bourgeois culture which act to perpetuate, if even implicitly, their misery. This includes family organization, religion, morality, jurisprudence, etc. Culture is but the result of specific material/economic conditions and has no life independent of these. The result of this struggle will be "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all" (104).Chapter 3, "Socialist and Communist Literature," encompasses Marx's discussion of the relationship between his movement and previous or contemporaneous socialist movements. In this chapter he repudiates these other movements for not fully understanding the significance of the proletarian struggle. They all suffer from at least one of 3 problems: 1) They look to previous modes of social organization for a solution to present difficulties. 2) They deny the inherent class character of the existing conflict. 3) They do not recognize that violent revolution on the part of the proletariat is the only way to eradicate the conditions of oppression. Only the Marxist communists truly appreciate the historical movement in which the antagonism between the proletariat and bourgeois is the final act.The final chapter, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties," announces the communist intention to "everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things" (120). The communist contribution to this ongoing revolutionary discourse will be the raising of the property question, for any revolutionary movement which does not address this question cannot successfully rescue people from oppression. As Marx thunders in conclusion, "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (121).

References Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto (1848).Trans. AJP Taylor. London: Penguin. Marx, K., Engels, F., Moore, S., & McClellan, D. (1992).The Communist manifesto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marx, K. (1983).The Portable Karl Marx(p. 131). Penguin Books. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2002).The communist manifesto. Penguin. Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). The communist manifesto in sociology and economics.The Journal of Political Economy.

8