The+Manifest+of+Class+Struggle,+with+Frederich+Engels

This is the Marx narrative that we are all probably most familiar with: All of history is the history of class struggle. The modern bourgeoisie grew up out of the “chartered burgher” of the feudal system, and has developed step by step to becoming the masters of “Modern Industry” and the most powerful class in society, to the point where “The execution of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (45). The bourgeoisie pushes free trade and modern means of production. In the process, they have made everything that was once noble and holy, base and vulgar. Industry is no longer national, and exploitation is rampant – exploitation of rural by urban, of the third world by the first. “The cheap prices of its commodities are [its] heavy artillery … It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production” (46). However, the bourgeoisie has sowed the seeds of its own demise. “The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them” (47). And despite attempts to rectify this by destroying productive forces or taking over new markets, the proletariat are poised to wield the weapons of the bourgeoisie against them, and this is made increasingly likely as the working conditions of laborers have become increasingly insufferable. Since the merits/faults of this overarching theory have been at the core of the grand political debates of the past half century, I wanted to bring up a more subtle issue in the text to take a look at: On p.48, describing how the working conditions of the proletariat have become so terrible, they write: The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex. My feeling is that they are not complaining about the lack of labor protection for children and the women as much as they are worried about the emasculating effects of the new modes of production. Any thoughts on the gendered implications of the rest of the analysis? Especially in light of their worry that, “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (45). - Ela Rossmiller According to Marx and Engels, the history of the world is the history of class struggle. The struggle may be overt or covert, it may result in revolution and transformation or the ruin of the contending classes, but it is omnipresent throughout history (from feudalism to the present, involving botht he civilized and the “savages.” Although the classes have taken on many forms and names, in modern times they consist of The Bourgeoisie and The Proletariat. The central idea here is economics and politics are inextricably linked; as The Bourgeoisie’s economic power has increased, so have they been able to maneuver to increase their political power, whether by freeing themselves of feudal lords, tying the hands of the “roving bandit” king, or establishing the modern State. Yes, the State is in the hands of The Bourgeoisie; in fact, Marx says it is “but a committee for managing the common affairs for the whole bourgeoisie” (p. 38). Meanwhile, the increasing economic and political power of The Bourgeoisie has been at the expense of The Proletariat. The history of class struggle is the history of the WORLD. It is The Bourgeoisie that has driven globalization by expanding trade, establishing world markets at the expense of national markets, establishing global relations of dependency between nations (center and periphery) and ultimately establishing colonialism for their increased enrichment. (He also mentions global communication and intellectual production, but this is a minor point and not a central theme). Make no doubt about it: The Bourgeoisie has been engaged in revolution, using economics and politics as its weapons. (“The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down Chinese walls.”) Technology also plays a key role in the oppression of the worker, because it makes the worker weaker and more stupid over time. (Think of Adam Smith’s factory worker.) This process involves cycles of boom and bust, to which The Bourgeoisie respond by crushing the masses, opening new markets, and exploiting old markets. Yet more production doesn’t solve the problem; it only makes the problem more entrenched. The problem, of course, is capitalism. For Marx and Engels, the oppression of the proletariat is the oppression that matters most. We see hints in this reading that the oppression of non-whites and women (as well as children!) is reducible to the class struggle in that they are exploited as a source of cheap labor, they are propertyless and do not control the means of production. To what extent are you satisfied with this account?
 * Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848): Class Struggle**
 * Marx and Engels on Class Struggle**
 * Summary**
 * Implications /Critiques/Comments/Questions**