In Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, he introduces the
movement of communism to eliminate the oppression of the leading class, the
bourgeoisie, upon the proletariats. Marx states, “Communism deprives no man of
the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to
deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such
appropriation.” (172) In his statement, he recognizes that this movement
eliminates the power of any class to oppress another class due to their labor
and its products. By eliminating this power, communism allows for the
elimination of the cycle, where one class overthrows the leading class, but
they inevitably become the oppressors and cause another overthrow by the
oppressed class.
For the elimination of their power,
the Communist movement seeks to abolish private property, but specifically the
bourgeois private property. Marx declares “modern bourgeois private property is
the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and
appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation
of the many by the few” (170). In his statement, he explains that private
property is really the bourgeois’ private property as they benefit from the
products of industry only. Therefore, since they are the sole benefiters, their
private property exploits the working class due to their labor and products.
Marx explains, “those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who
acquire anything, do not work” (172). Since there is an imbalance of work and
benefit of the products from its labor, this causes an exploitation of the
working class. From this exploitation, the leading class inhibits them from the
benefits of their own production. Due to this oppression from its exploitation,
the working class lives by the bourgeoisie’s rules. The result of this
oppression allows for the antagonism of these classes. The opposition of the
classes creates an imbalance of products of industry and the workers’ labor.
Marx states, “Property, it its present form, is based on the antagonism of
capital and wage-labor” (170). In his statement, he recognizes that property becomes
solely for the leading class, which creates an inequality and opposition of the
working class not benefiting from their labor’s products. The relationship of
property and power comes from the leading class solely benefiting, but doing
none of the producing. Communism eliminates this property and therefore,
destroys the leading class’ power to oppress the working class.
In the communist movement, Marx
relates that abolishing the property of the leading class takes away their
power. Their power exists solely because they oppress the working class in that
they cannot benefit from their own products, but need the work in order to sustain their living. If
they take away that property, then the leading class no longer obtain any power to oppress and exploit the working class.
Without their power, then the oppression ceases. The goal of Communism is
eliminate the cycle of the oppressed and oppressors by destroying the
oppressors’ power that comes from their private property exploited from other classes.
Discussion Questions: In his statement, Marx argues, "in bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality" (171). Once Communism comes into effect, what would this society ensue? Does this mean people become independent even though there is no private property and necessarily depend on others, but still retain their individuality?
I think like Liezel makes a really good point about private property being important to the Communist movement. However, I would like to point out a quotation from the beginning of the reading: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property" (170). I think that it's really interesting that Marx makes the distinction that private property is okay so long as it does not belong to the bourgeois. It makes me wonder how Marx would exactly distinguish bourgeois property from non-bourgeois property.
ReplyDeleteLike Emma, I also noted the important distinction that Marx makes when defining the term private property. It seems that he only wishes to abolish the private property of the bourgeois both because the proletariats have no true private property and he wishes to put them onto an even playing field.
ReplyDeleteLiezel's discussion question gets at Marx's interpretation of the nature of society. He argues that in current bourgeoisie society, people depend on a revolve around capital wealth. The focus on materialistic goods makes them the driving factor of society, rather than the people themselves. This control deems capital as independent and individual, rather than the people. The proletariats who are subject to this powerful economy thus become dependent and unoriginal, like simple cogs of the economic wheel. Marx hopes that with the abolition of private property and the unjust economy, people will redeem their humanity. Under communism, the proletariats will receive their freedom, which Marx defines as "free trade, free selling, and buying," (171). This freedom puts choice and control in the hands of the proletariats, rather than in the capital that previously controlled them. This is how Marx hopes to liberate the proletariats from an oppressive societal condition.
Though Liezel is correct in noting that private property is a central theme in the Communist Manifesto, and Emma furthers this idea by separating out bourgeoisie property as the target of communist efforts to abolish the institution, an understanding of the exact meaning of these different types of private property is necessary to understand the text. Marx & Engels begin their rhetoric on private property by referring to "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property!" (170) which they see as the domain "of the petty artisan and of the small peasant" (170). As was noted above, the communists do not aim to abolish this form of property, as it is already being destroyed by capitalism and the bourgeois. Rather, they aim to remove the private property of the bourgeois and by doing so grant laborers access to the products of their own work.
ReplyDeleteWage-laborers do not have access to private property because unlike the rapidly-disappearing peasants and artisans, they do not receive the products (property) they produce, but rather wages which must be wholly invested in the continued survival of the laborer to produce more labor. Marx explains "The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer is bare existence as a labourer" (171). This is because capitalists want to pay as little as possible for labor in order to produce goods cheaply--those who do not produce the cheapest goods are forced out of business. Because there is almost always a surplus of labor, the laborer is then forced to work for just enough avoid starvation, as if he or she demands more there are plenty of unemployed laborers willing to accept the lowest possible wage in order to survive. As the labourers only earn enough to survive, they are unable to accumulate private property.
As laborers have no private property, and antiquated forms of private property are rapidly disappearing, the question turns, then, to the only type of private property which will be left under the progression of capitalism: bourgeois property. Marx states that the private property of the bourgeois is, in fact, an illusion. While peasants' and artisans' property was "Hard-won, self-acquired, [and] self-earned" (170), the bourgeois do not create their private property through their own efforts, but rather accumulate it due to "a social status in production" (170). Private property, or capital, is created by all of society, and only through the social structure is assigned to the bourgeois as private property. This is what Marx means when he says "Capital is, therefore, not a personal, but a social power" (170).
Because capital is not, in fact, private property, but rather the awards of the social system, communism therefore aims to transfer private property from the bourgeois to the proletariat who actually made the property. This is a social transaction, as what is happening is not an actual transfer of property, but rather a reassignment of the products of society, and the retroactive transfer of the products of society from one class to another.
Lachlan, I agree with your analysis, but not all of your conclusion. Marx advocates for a very deliberate transfer of actual property. Private property is a form of capital. It has tradable economic value. Capital is a social power because only a small ruling class actually has capital, and they therefore have the power to dictate the actions of society. Both private property and capital are awards of the economic class system Marx is attempting to replace. Communism does envision a direct transfer of property from the bourgeois to the proletariat in the form of a proletarian government. Marx wants the proletariat to "use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie" (175). This is a transfer of property from the wealthy class to a government supporting all people. Though it is a social transaction, it is also an economic transaction. In answer to Liezel's question, the goal is to remove dependence of the many on the few, and instead have each individual equally dependent on society, eliminating class structure altogether. With economic equality, people can become individuals on a social level.
ReplyDelete