When
expressing the objectionable nature of capitalism, Marx often recalls the economic
situations that preceded it, treating them like “the good old days.” As he puts
it, “the bourgeoisie has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic
relations” (161). In contrasting the new and the old like this, he aims to
emphasize the losses that capitalism presents. However, he ends up
romanticizing feudalism, which undermines his broader statements about society
and religion. This discrepancy ultimately renders this part of The Communist Manifesto self-contradictory.
Marx
begins his comparison by declaring that the bourgeoisie of capitalism has “pitilessly
torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’”
and has “left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked
self-interest” (161). Moreover, it has “resolved personal worth into exchange
value” (161). Here, Marx implies that naked
self-interest did not exist prior to capitalism and that feudalism never
based personal worth on exchange value.
Presumably, this is because capitalism has incorporated money into the labor
equation. However, the absence of financial relations does not soften the
self-interest found in feudalism. Rather, it is just as “naked” as the
self-interest of capitalism, because the ultimate goal of lords is still wealth,
and the ultimate value of serfs is still how much wealth they convey. Because
Marx is so focused on the concept of wages, he fails to identify these
underlying similarities. Instead, he ends up defending a system that did precisely
what he criticizes capitalism for doing.
Marx’s tendency to idealize feudalism shows up
again when he accuses capitalism of “[drowning] the most heavenly ecstasies of
religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in
the icy water of egotistical calculation” (161). Not only is this vision of
feudalism extremely glamourized, but it also contradicts Marx’s previously
stated views of religion, where he accuses it of separating humankind from its
essence. In romanticizing the religiosity of the feudalistic era, he forgets
his strict intellectual adherence to atheism. Once again, we see that Marx, in
setting up a contrast between feudalism and capitalism, has ended up
glamorizing the former and contradicting himself.
Because
of all this, The Communist Manifesto
comes across as a little inconsistent in this section. Marx goes too far in his
method of juxtaposing feudalism and capitalism, so much so that he loses track
of his broader argument to some extent.
While I appreciate Emily pointing out the ways Marx’s portrayal of the feudal age may confuse readers, I would disagree that Marx loses track of his message throughout. Marx makes it very clear that feudalism was flawed, listing it in his description of class conflicts throughout history when he states “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another” (159). In this way, feudalism is like all societies up to Marx’s time, in that it involved oppression and class conflict. When he returns to a discussion of feudalism later in the manifesto, it is not to endorse it, but rather to use the memory of feudalism to point out the faults of communism. While in feudalism people were oppressed, the social system still had basic rules underlying it such that people knew what they could expect out of life, even if the outlook was not good. On the other hand, the proletariat in a capitalist system “must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (164). Serfs were stuck in their roles, but they were at least provided some security in knowing that they would always be serfs, and were unlikely to become worse off, but the proletariat is provided no security under capitalism. It acts as merely another commodity to be traded or discarded at will; if there is a surplus of workers, some workers will be laid off and, unless industry expands, starve. In this way, the proletariat has no investment in the capitalist system, and has “nothing to lose but their chains” (186).
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Lachlan I would agree that the caste-like nature of the feudalism era is limiting to the "opressed" but I would like to say that Emily points out a very important notion that Marx sees Capitalism as the epitome of exploitation with gradations of inter-human dependency preceding it; this is what I believe Emily was pointing out. That while the prose describing feudalism does suggest a romantization of it, it may be that Marx is trying to specifically express that the existence of that inter-human dependency displayed most clearly in the serf/landlord relationship (each mutually dependent on the others existence) is the most important facet of the era and then is comparing it to the current capitalist age where that interaction and dependency is completely absent.
ReplyDeleteI think that Emily makes a fair point, but like Lachlan said, I think it is too strong of a statement to say that Marx loses track of his broader argument. In regards to the discussion of religion of the third paragraph, I think that it is important to consider the context of both texts. Marx's manuscripts were never published by him, but the Communist Manifesto was written to be read by others. Because of this, the Manifesto is intended to be persuasive and I think this is why his stance on religion appears to change.
ReplyDeleteAhhh! Okay guys, so I realized I forgot to add the discussion question. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the distinction between the backbreaking, slavish work of feudal serfs and that of workers under capitalism? Does feudalism allow for more individuality and purpose than capitalism, and if so, why?