The Communist Manifesto: Revolutionary Persuasion?

“Workers of all countries, unite!” (32): the timeless call for the proletariat revolution. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published the Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848. The widespread publication of the Communist Manifesto indicates the popularity of the document which was adapted into numerous languages to increase the reader base. Despite the wide array of readers, there was no global communist revolution; however, The Communist Manifesto was effective in kindling the Russian Revolution. The language of the Manifesto polarizes the conditions of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, making the document popular to the lower working class. Marx also redefined words which gave him implicit control over connotative interpretations. By combining language elements and logical refutations of opposing arguments, Marx created a revolutionary document with the potential to alter the global social order. History shows that The Communist Manifesto didn’t reach that potential.

To instigate a proletariat revolution, Marx had to appeal to working class individuals, “who live only so long as they find work” (8). The harsh realities of the industrialized world made the working class a mere “appendage of the machine” (8). Marx described the dehumanizing and “slavish” (12) conditions of factory work to appeal to his oppressed audience. He acknowledged the suppressed individuality of the workers he addressed. Marx argued that “the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character” (8). By noting that individuality had been removed from capitalist factories, Marx validated a complaint of his working class audience who yearned for “individual character” (8). Although his promotion of individuality was well accepted, Marx stated that the “competition between the workers themselves” (10) was upsetting any possibility of revolution. He was advocating individuality when competition in the working class was preventing unification. The concession of individuality to his audience contradicted the need for the unification and “organization of the proletarians into a class” (10).

Another obstacle that Marx addressed in The Communist Manifesto was the bourgeoisie. Marx had to define his use of the term bourgeoisie before he could unite the proletariat in opposition to it. He did so by comparing the bourgeoisie to “the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” (7). Marx made the upper class susceptible by the use of descriptive language. He indicated that they could not control the power they had obtained as “the product of a long course of development” (4). The proletarians could in fact “wield those weapons…with which the bourgeoisie” (8) rose to power. The use of images refined the effect of The Communist Manifesto. Much like explaining to a child that a top will fall if too much force is exerted on it, Marx used a common sense appeal through language to persuade his audience of the susceptibility of the bourgeoisie.

Central to restructuring the social order was a new perspective on families. The abolition of the family also became central to communist opposition. Marx declared that “the bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production” (17). He argued that communism “desire[d] to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love” (18). Many proletarians may have found reason in Marx’s appeal, but his assertions of free love rankled others. By adopting a system with a “community of women” (18), the proletarians would also be included. Marx argued that the bourgeois “[took]…great[ ] pleasure in seducing each other’s wives” (18); however, the proletariat did not care about the wives of the bourgeoisie. They cared about their own spouses and families. Included in the working class that Marx was addressing were the very women that would be subject to the new social order of free love. The inherent mistake of failing to recognize the female audience was further expanded when Marx stated that “communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society” (16). Marx argued that the product of free love could not be denied. Communism asserts that when the “antagonism between classes within [a] nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end” (18). The proletariat revolution would result in the elimination of class antagonism, but a system of free love would create an environment of individual conflict.

To refute the ever-increasing criticisms of communism, Karl Marx defined critical terms and concepts. Because many of the ideas, such as capitalism, free trade, and legal marriage, which The Communist Manifesto critiqued were seen as positive things by the majority of society, Marx had to counter popular connotations and assert his own definitions. Many of the bourgeois had risen to their station through free enterprise, so Marx first defined “free trade” (5), the freedom that “resolved personal worth into exchange value” (5). Again his statement was appealing to the wants and needs of the individual by implying that personal worth does not have a monetary price. Marx then defined communism such that it supported personal worth and individuality: “[communism] point[s] out and bring[s] to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat” (13).

Marx understood correctly the power of a unified body of people. The fallacy of his argument was instead the assertion that proletariat power gained through revolution would remedy the social ills of capitalism. Karl Marx asserted that communism “deprive[s] [man] of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of…appropriations” (16); however, the power gained through revolution could be used to subjugate labor. The purpose of The Communist Manifesto was to create an incendiary document that would help the proletariat “overthrow…all existing social conditions” (32). Instead the Manifesto provided a mechanism whereby “the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains” (32). By the logic of Karl Marx, a proletariat revolution frees the people of the working class from their chains in time to see the same shackles clasped around the necks of the bourgeoisie.
 
Works Cited

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx & Engels Internet Archive. Marxists Internet Archive, 2000. Web. 8 March 2010.