The communist manifesto

After reading The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, I come away with nothing so much as the sense that it is interesting, still relevant, but clearly situated at a particular stage of European history. In actual fact the inclusion of several later prefaces, written by Engels, along with the manifesto suggests at once how the central idea may be summarised, and describes its relation to its time. I quote from the preface to the English edition of 1888:

“... in every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which nowadays a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class - the proletariat - cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class - the bourgeoisie - without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction and class struggles.” (p.65-6)

This is in line with Marx’s formulation in reaction to Hegel, that it is the material and social conditions of society that determines consciousness, and not the other way around:

“Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?” (p. 30)

There is certainly evidence for the influence of social relations and the cultural and class milieu on our state in life and the ideas that we hold, and few theories about the nature of humans and human psychology would think of excluding the social environment these days. On the other hand there are also plenty of instances in which people have risen above their situation, and this does not fit neatly in Marx’s formulation. Aaron Swartz has a short but thought-provoking post on this topic.

Communism has the general proletariat’s interests – and only their interests – at heart, and aims to abolish all bourgeois property. Bourgeois property is seen as the condition that perpetuates oppression:

“The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property … wage labour … creates capital, i.e. that kind of property which exploits wage labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation” (p. 22-3)

Freud, incidentally, didn’t think much of Marx’s view of humanity. Marx sees humans as inherently good, but corrupted by society and so if the instruments of oppression can be done away with people would live naturally and at peace with one another. Freud’s view of human nature is considerably more complicated, but leans towards the view that people need to dominate because of the aggressive (Thanatos) drive which is the subject of Civilisation and its Discontents:

“With abolition of private property the human love of aggression is robbed of one of its tools … No change has been made in the disparities of power and influence that aggression exploits in pursuit of its ends … Aggression was not created by property; it prevailed with almost no restriction in primitive times” (p. 63)

And as regards the so-called struggle against inequalities:

“nature, by her highly unequal endowment of individuals with physical attributes and mental abilities, has introduced injustices that cannot be remedied” (p. 63)

These different views about the basic nature of humanity are reminiscent of the differences between Rousseau and Hobbes.