Manifesto of the Communist Party and its chapters
Introduction
The Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a text elaborated in 1848 and directed towards the proletariat, one of the oppressed social classes, by the bourgeoisie, of the time of the time. This manifesto is divided into a preamble and four chapters: bourgeois and proletarians, proletarians and communists, socialist and communist literature and position of the communists before the different. The bases of Marxism, a political theory that is born years later than this writing, are already reflected in the arguments used by the authors.
After reading the manifesto, the first doubt that arises is: Why was London chosen as a place of writing an ideologically communist manifesto? A priori, England was already a capitalist country for some centuries, so it is quite strange. I had thought that the reason could be due to geographical issues, but since it was an isolated is isolated from Europe I discarded that option.
Developing
Investigating the subject to resolve my question, I have found the so -called Liga de los Communistas, which was founded in London following the arrival of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels after their exile. This event explains why London as a place of origin of the manifesto, which is still strange given the ideologies.
In the first epigraph of the manifesto, Marx and Engels introduce us two teachings, of which one is primary. This teaching is the vision of communism as a force by European powers. And I firmly believe that this teaching gives rise to the second, which is not more or less than exposure to the world of what communism thinks through manifesto itself.
Class struggle is the term that Marx and Engels use to criticize the society in which they live and base the basis of their ideology. Revolutionary term for the time despite being a concept that defined society, since this was used to such differentiation between people and did not conceive the idea of being able to fight the oppressor;But in reality it is a very obvious term, there is nothing revolutionary in the backthat had more power.
I think that using the term class struggle is a political strategy to wake up in the proletariat, weak class of the time, an internal fury against its oppressor, the bourgeoisie, in order for the oppressed to rebel. Marx and Engels, in addition, attack strongly against what, from my point of view, was the principle of globalization.
They complain about the destruction of the national and blame it for the laziness of the bourgeois, which prefer machines rather than workers, the product imported to the national product. I think this criticism is poorly oriented, every society evolves to make your life better and simpler, it is not something new of the bourgeoisie, it is something of evolution.
Beyond this own idea, I think that this criticism is intended. They seek the mass exploitation of people to increase their capital, turning the workers of the new industries, much larger than the small workshops of the time, in employees and, in turn, in members dependent on the bourgeoisie to subsist.
This large -scale industrialization and exploitation is used by Marx and Engels to launch a message to those oppressed people. A very timely message and with great political vision in my opinion, because the message was none other than the union. By increasing the number of oppressed, its union would lead to a force of inconceivable dimensions against the bourgeoisie. The triumph of the workers would reside in their solidarity among them, said Marx and Engels. And in those moments of solidarity, demands were born towards the bourgeoisie to reduce its exploitation.
To continue taking to their land to the proletariat, Marx and Engels define them as the only class capable of ending the bourgeoisie. These statements are very suitable since it was the class with more members, that is, the most trained to carry out a rebellion against the bourgeoisie. Surely if another class had had more strength, we would have seen replaced the proletariat for that class in this manifesto, in my opinion.
What is the position of the communists before the proletaria? Marx and Engels said. It was none other than it, both fought in the same direction, but the communists were defined as the most mentally resolved part of the proletariat by having much clearer ideas. All this is a way to say that the most confusing proletariat, without knowing very well what to do, let himself be guided by the proletarians with the clearest ideas and, how could it be otherwise, by the communists.
In my view, Marx and Engels try to put on their side the most trained people, with greater power of influence on the masses, in short, to the people with more power within the proletariat, so that it was easier for them to leadall the proletariat through its best members. One of the aspects of the manifesto that I cannot understand is:
Why Marx and Engels attack the proletariat to some extent? This attack is born from a misunderstanding by the proletariat, who believed that the communists wanted to expropriate their private properties. Despite the ignorance of the proletariat, is this reason enough to make such comments? I think that attacking or criticizing who you want to be your ally is wrong. .
But continuing with private property, Marx and Engels argued that it was something exclusive to the bourgeoisie, since it has been modifying it based on their interests. The communists did not intend to abolish private property in their material form, but sought that the benefits generated by a person’s private property were exclusively for him. In this way the capital would favor bourgeois and proletaria.
The background of this measure or idea, from my point of view, is none other than that of working to eat, that is, that the bourgeoisie did not live at the expense of exploiting workers and what they generated. Extrapolating today’s society, we know that it continues to happen and to inconceivable dimensions. They should have omitted this part, in which the superiority is clearly seen from which the authors speak, and to have put aside the sarcastic tone, almost burlesque towards the proletariat, to focus on the problem they wanted to fight, the bourgeois domain onCapital and society
Two other points to highlight from the manifesto are education and women, the first one aroused a lot of interest as a student, the second did it due to the society in which we live, which, despite being much more advanced than that of theManifesto, continues to place women on a lower step in many parts of the world. Returning to education, Marx and Engels say that it has been built and molded by the bourgeoisie, so it is more than necessary to destroy it and make education free.
And, as part of education, they want children to stop being exploited in industries, offering a free education. As for the woman, they want to end the vision of it as a reproductive object, of children, and that becomes part of the community. These proposals make me ask me: will this be the beginning of feminism?
After all, Marx and Engels want to convey a very clear idea: to end the class society, the proletariat must come to power and, once there, take the necessary measures to end inequalities. The only problem that I see this approach is greed, that is, who ensures that once the power is obtained, do not stay there?
This would mean returning to the same problem with different participants. As an example we could talk about societies that have tried to establish communism and have ended up becoming self-critics or dictatorships, such as China today or Russia in their most autocratic period, although it is currently more than similar under a democratic aspect.
Linking with the previous section, I will talk about the social models that the authors of the manifesto propose. I think all models have a clear failure and has already been named in this document. This is the rest of the classes, those that are weakest apparently than the proletariat. In my way of understanding things, you cannot promulgate an idea of equality, when in your manifest you are discriminating against the weakest classes.
But ignoring these moral issues, I would like to highlight the apparent defense that Marx and Engels do to the bourgeoisie in terms of their properties, for which they have fought, against feudalism, and are not powerful for hereditary issues. I think that this point in favor of the bourgeois. In my opinion this note is very correct, which I do not know if it was a sample of respect or a political strategy.
The manifesto ends with a last call to all proletaria with the following message: proletarians from all countries, I think this message is a clear example of populism, a seemingly very effective verbal weapon. Saying what the people want to hear, great masses of people move. In addition, a few lines before concluding the manifesto, indicates to each country proletariat to which political party has to support or join. These indications, which are almost obligations to be part of the communist movement, make me think about how much truth are the words of Marx and Engels and how much political strategy hides.
conclusion
In conclusion, I am surprised by the peaceful tone that the whole manifesto has when communism hides or defends the idea of fighting and rebeling against the enemy, in this case the bourgeoisie. I deduce that as a strategy to get more individuals or followers, who join the cause, it is more effective than a hostile speech.
Anyway, it is quite hypocritical to give such a pacifist image when they defend the whole for the end, that is, if violence is needed to achieve the objectives, there will be violence. Although, as a point in favor of such hostility, I know few social movements that have been achieved without threats or violence of some kind.
Leave feedback