Draft:Critique on the Communist Manifesto: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Version vom 3. April 2025, 15:14 Uhr

I leave the idea of the Communist Revolution aside. The purpose was obviously the ending of capitalism. I will rather focus on the assumptions that Marx and Engels made to achieve this goal.

1. Proletarian Revolution

Marx and Engels believed that the contradictions within capitalism—such as alienation, exploitation, and wealth inequality—would create unrest among the working class. This discontent would eventually culminate in a proletarian revolution, where workers would overthrow the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and seize political power. The revolution was seen as a necessary step to dismantle private ownership of the means of production.

Marx lived during a period of immense societal upheaval—the mid-19th century saw numerous revolts, insurrections, and transitions, including the Revolutions of 1848 across Europe, which likely fueled his belief in the inevitability of proletarian uprising.

Revolutionary Zeitgeist The 19th century was marked by widespread dissatisfaction with feudal structures, monarchies, and burgeoning industrial capitalism. Workers faced harsh conditions, long hours, and alienation, creating fertile ground for revolutionary ideas. The Revolutions of 1848 exemplified the growing unrest, as demands for political and economic reforms spread rapidly across Europe. While these uprisings failed to achieve the sweeping proletarian revolution that Marx anticipated, they demonstrated the potential for collective action and the fragility of existing systems.

For Marx, the revolutionary Zeitgeist supported his belief in historical materialism—the idea that societal changes are driven by conflicts between economic classes. He saw capitalism as an inherently unstable system that would inevitably give way to socialism as the proletariat seized control of the means of production.

Marx and Engels sought to overcome capitalism entirely, rather than merely adjusting its flaws, because their critique of capitalism extended to its foundational structure and dynamics. They believed that the contradictions within capitalism—such as exploitation, alienation, and wealth inequality—were not superficial flaws that could be reformed but intrinsic features of the system itself. Here’s why they pursued this more radical approach:

1.1. Inherent Exploitation

Marx and Engels argued that capitalism inherently requires the exploitation of labor to generate profit. The relationship between the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers) is fundamentally unequal, with workers producing surplus value that is appropriated by capitalists. They viewed this exploitation as an unavoidable feature of capitalism, making reform insufficient to address the root problem.

1.2. Alienation

Under capitalism, workers become alienated from their labor, the products they create, and their own humanity. This alienation arises because workers have no control over the means of production and are treated as commodities rather than individuals. Marx and Engels believed that this alienation was baked into the system and could only be resolved by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

1.3. Cycles of Crisis

Capitalism’s drive for profit leads to cycles of economic instability, such as booms and busts. Marx and Engels argued that these crises are not anomalies but systemic outcomes of capitalism’s contradictions, such as overproduction and underconsumption. Reforming capitalism could not eliminate these crises; only replacing the system entirely could address them.

1.4. Class Struggle

For Marx and Engels, capitalism is defined by perpetual class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This conflict, rooted in the ownership of the means of production, shapes society and politics. They believed that capitalism’s reliance on class divisions made it inherently oppressive and incompatible with their vision of an egalitarian society.

1.5. Vision of Communism

Rather than reform capitalism, Marx and Engels proposed replacing it with a communist system, where the means of production would be collectively owned and class distinctions abolished. This vision was rooted in their belief that capitalism’s core structure—private ownership and profit-driven production—was incompatible with genuine equality and freedom.

Conclusion

Marx and Engels saw reform as insufficient because it would leave capitalism’s fundamental contradictions intact. Their revolutionary approach was aimed at creating a new system that could resolve these contradictions and foster a classless society. This radical vision reflected their commitment to addressing the root causes of exploitation and inequality, rather than mitigating their symptoms.

1.6. Alignment with Marx’s Expectations

The idea of the Proletarian Revolution found expression in historical events such as the Russian Revolution and later periods of centralized governance under leaders like Stalin and Mao, where the means of production were brought under state control. Therefore the first step towards an egalitarian-non capitalist-world was made. Nevertheless it was the first step only.

1.7. Deviation from Marx’s Expectations

Shift to Social Democracy: Instead of the envisioned revolution, many nations transitioned toward social democracy, using centralized states to moderate capitalism through reforms such as labor rights, welfare systems, and progressive taxation. This shift:

Protected Capitalism: Social democracy maintained the fundamental structures of capitalism while softening its harsher aspects to prevent unrest.

State Interference: Governments played an active role in redistributing wealth and regulating markets, achieving some of the egalitarian goals Marx sought but within the capitalist framework.

This pragmatic approach proved more sustainable than a full proletarian revolution. By addressing the immediate needs of workers—such as improved wages and social protections—social democracy prevented the revolutionary fervor that Marx had anticipated.

Implications

The evolution of social democracy illustrates how capitalism adapted to survive, incorporating elements of state interference to address its contradictions without dismantling its foundation. Marx’s vision of a classless society and a withering state remains unfulfilled, as capitalism has shown remarkable resilience and flexibility.

Perhaps Marx underestimated the ability of capitalist systems to adapt and absorb opposition through reform, as well as the challenges of achieving global solidarity among workers.

2. Centralization of Power

Following the revolution, the proletariat would establish what Marx called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This phase was not intended to be a literal dictatorship, but rather a transitional state where the working class would hold political power. The goal was to:

Abolish private property and centralize the means of production in the hands of the state (acting as the representative of the workers).

Nationalize major industries, banks, and infrastructure.

Implement policies to eliminate class distinctions, such as progressive taxation, free education, and collective control over resources.

This centralization was intended to organize society's resources efficiently and fairly, addressing the inequities of capitalism.

2.1. Alignment with Marx’s Expectations

Centralization of Power: Marx expected that the proletariat would use the state as a transitional vehicle to centralize the means of production, abolish private ownership, and eliminate class distinctions. In this sense, the state’s role as the owner of the means of production in both the USSR and the CCP mirrors Marx’s concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Planned Economy: The shift to planned economies, where production and resources were allocated based on state planning rather than market dynamics, reflects Marx’s critique of market economies as chaotic and exploitative. He sought a more rational organization of society’s productive forces, which state-led systems attempted to implement.

2.2. Deviation from Marx’s Vision

Authoritarian Governance: Marx’s expectation was that the state would eventually "wither away" as class distinctions disappeared and society reached a stage of true communism. However, the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao entrenched state control, creating new elites rather than moving toward decentralization and egalitarianism.

Prolonged State Control: Instead of transitioning to collective ownership managed by the workers themselves, state capitalism entrenched the state as the primary actor, delaying or even preventing the realization of Marx’s ultimate vision.

Economic Challenges: The planned economies of the USSR and CCP faced inefficiencies and stagnation, which contributed to their eventual failure. While these systems temporarily addressed inequality and provided societal improvements, they struggled to adapt to the complexities of modern economies.

3. Gradual Dissolution of Class Distinctions

As the state centralized the means of production and restructured society, Marx believed that the conditions for class antagonism would begin to fade. Without private property or exploitative labor practices, the distinctions between classes (proletariat and bourgeoisie) would erode. This process would involve:

The redistribution of wealth and resources.

The elimination of wage labor as a form of exploitation.

Collective ownership of resources to ensure equality.

3.1. Alignment with Marx’s Expectations

the dissolution of class distinctions in communist systems saw some meaningful advancements, such as universal education, healthcare, housing, and employment guarantees—which addressed key aspects of social equality and sought to eliminate wage labor as a form of exploitation. The collectivization of land ownership also reflected significant efforts to bridge economic disparities.

Deviation from Marx’s Vision

However, these measures were not sufficient to create a truly egalitarian society, as new elites often emerged within the governing structures. This concentration of power in the hands of political and bureaucratic leadership ultimately reinforced inequality in practice. Marx’s vision of a classless society, while ideologically appealing, appears to face inherent challenges in reconciling the complexities of human nature and societal organization with the theoretical ideals of equality.

Marx viewed the market economy as inherently chaotic, exploitative, and rooted in capitalist motives like profit maximization and private ownership. However, in striving for an egalitarian society, the dynamics of decentralized production and shared ownership could lead to forms of competition that bear similarities to market mechanisms—especially when equal opportunities are guaranteed for all individuals.

Market Economy in an Egalitarian Framework: Decentralized Decision-Making: In a truly egalitarian society, production and distribution would rely on cooperation and communal decision-making. However, individuals and communities might still compete to showcase innovation, efficiency, or productivity within this framework. This competition would be detached from capitalist motives but could mirror aspects of a free market, where actors strive to meet collective needs while demonstrating their abilities.

Competition in Egalitarian Societies: Even if Marx anticipated solidarity as a central principle, human nature and diversity of goals could create friendly rivalry or competition among workers and communities. This would be based on shared values rather than profit-driven motives, akin to a cooperative economic model.

Equal chances mean equal platforms for workers to excel, leading naturally to comparative evaluations of output, creativity, or contributions—an aspect closely aligned with market dynamics.

Opposition to Monopolies and Oligopolies: Egalitarian societies inherently reject concentrated power structures like monopolies and oligopolies, promoting decentralized and fair systems. These systems could function similarly to non-capitalist market economies, where access and fairness are prioritized without exploitation.

Conclusion

Marx approach of an egalitarian society contradicts its opposition against market economy. Since market economy is the natural opposite of monopolies and oligopolies he indicates that those are preferable which aligns with the idea of central planning. However it is scientifically proven that monopolies and oligopolies are economically inefficient. Even in non-capitalist societies.

Moreover in a society where resources and opportunities are distributed equally, individuals will still naturally strive to excel, innovate, or distinguish themselves. This drive doesn’t disappear—it just shifts focus.

For example, in a theoretical egalitarian society, competition might manifest in areas like intellectual achievements, artistic expression, or contributions to communal well-being. The absence of capitalist profit motives doesn’t eliminate the desire to stand out or improve; it simply redirects it toward non-materialistic goals. This aligns with the idea that competition isn’t inherently tied to capitalism—it’s a broader human trait.

4. The Fading Away of the State

Once class distinctions had been eliminated, Marx envisioned the state itself "withering away." Since the state primarily exists to mediate class struggles, a truly egalitarian and classless society would no longer require a state apparatus. At this stage:

Power would be decentralized, and collective decision-making would guide social and economic organization.

Communities would self-manage production and distribution, operating based on communal needs rather than profit motives.

This final stage represented Marx's vision of a communist society—where human relations would no longer be dominated by economics or power hierarchies.

4.1. Vanishing of the nation state

Marx’s assumption that the state would "wither away" under communism stems from his understanding of the state's role in class society. According to Marx, the state exists primarily to mediate conflicts between classes and uphold the dominance of the ruling class. In a classless, communist society, where exploitation and class distinctions are eliminated, Marx theorized that the need for such a state apparatus would disappear.

Reasoning Behind Marx’s Assumption: Class-Based Function of the State: Marx argued that the state is fundamentally a tool for the ruling class (bourgeoisie under capitalism) to maintain its power over the working class. He believed that once class distinctions were abolished through the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the state would lose its primary function.

Transition Phase: The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was envisioned as a temporary phase where the working class would use the state to dismantle capitalist structures and reorganize society. As inequalities and exploitation were eradicated, the state would gradually become unnecessary and fade away, replaced by decentralized, communal decision-making.

Global Communism: Marx envisioned communism as an international movement. He believed that once all nations transitioned to communism, the concept of a nation-state would become obsolete, as there would no longer be economic or political boundaries necessitating state governance.

Ignoring the Role of the Nation-State: While Marx’s theory addressed the structural role of the state, it overlooked several practical realities:

National Identity and Governance: Marx underestimated the deep-rooted cultural, historical, and social significance of nation-states. Even in classless societies, people often organize around shared identities, which can necessitate governance structures.

Complex Global Dynamics: The assumption of seamless globalization under communism ignored the complexities of international relations, such as economic dependencies, cultural differences, and geopolitical interests, which make the dissolution of nation-states difficult.

Challenges of Decentralization: The idea of replacing the state with decentralized, communal systems has proven challenging, as large-scale societies often require coordination and infrastructure that resemble state functions.

Conclusion

Marx’s vision of the state fading away was ideologically grounded in his belief in historical materialism, but it did not fully account for the practical and cultural roles of nation-states. While globalization under communism might have reduced the significance of national borders, the complete disappearance of nation-states remains a highly ambitious and arguably unrealistic aspect of his theory.