Marx's (and Engles') Communist Manifesto

Happy Valentine's Day, Socialists!

Today in class, we talked a little about Marx and his Communist Manifesto (which, we should note, was also Friedrich Engles' Manifesto).  Several people commented in the poll feed that Marx's communism is not what communist nations really use.  I agree.  Marx (and Engles) believed that eventually capitalism would destroy itself, and then the working class would govern under socialism, and that socialism itself would someday give way to a state-less, class-less system: communism.  If you look at the communist nations today and the way their countries are run, it is nothing like what Marx originally envisioned.  Usually when we think of "communism" we think of a charismatic leader who runs everything and decides everything, not a class-less society where there is no single head.  I'm not really sure we should even give the same name to Marx's idea and the controlling governments that exist today.

When Marx and Engles lived in London during the 1840s, they saw the worst of capitalism.  In Engles' The Great Towns (1845) he wrote,

The slums of the English towns have much in common--the worst houses in a town being found in the worst districts....  These streets themselves are usually unpaved and full of holes.  They are filthy and strewn with animal and vegetable refuse.  Since they have neither gutters nor drains the refuse accumulates in stagnant, sinking puddles.  Ventilation in the slums is inadequate owing to the hopelessly unplanned nature of these areas.  A great many people live huddled together in a very small area, and so it is easy to imagine the nature of the air in these workers' quarters.

Engles also discusses in this same book the "atomization" of society.  Men and women, competing and trying to get ahead, people no longer relied on each other; they didn't even speak to each other.  He, and Marx, felt that capitalism would eventually self-destruct when the working class realized how they were being used in order to create the new advanced, industrialized nation.  Then they, the majority of the population, would govern.  If the working class was in charge, logically they would be able to lead with society's greatest needs in mind.  And then communism would supersede this system with a next-to-millennial one.

But is Marx's idea of a perfectly balanced, class-less society actually possible?  We believe, of course, that one day the Messiah will be our only King and there will be no inequality, but with imperfect humans "we have learned by sad experience it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121: 39).  In order for communism to work, we would have to agree to some kind of social contract; we would not seek to get ahead of anyone else but simply want equality.  I certainly want that for my country, but if anyone broke this social contract then the whole system breaks down.  If one person or a group of people try to do better than everyone else, immediately communism doesn't work and it reverts into totalitarianism.

Marx actually did see some merit in capitalism; it encouraged growth and progress due to the competitive nature of man.  He also saw the darker side of it.  I think there certainly is a problem with our current capitalist system when it leaves so many behind as so few get ahead, but I don't think Marxism is going to work with our imperfect human natures right now.

See you in the millennium, Marx!