The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Marx and Engels in Brussels, and presented to the Communist League in London in 1848. As a work it is split into four main sections.
The first section is 'Bourgeois and Proletarians', this section is mainly concerned with what has already happened, and discusses in detail the rise of the bourgeoisie, how they have dismantled the feudal systems that preceded them, and effectively managed to simplify class antagonisms to 'a two horse race'. These are the bourgeoisie (who have power) and the proletariat (who have none). Marx argues that the bourgeoisie have reduced human interaction and worth to being considered purely on financial terms. He also points out the most obvious fault of the capitalist system, in that for it to continue to succeed, it needs perpetual growth. As such, it continually needs to be fed by either gaining new markets, or by finding methods by which it can further saturate existing markets.
Marx argues that another effect of the rise of the bourgeoisie has been to concentrate wealth in a few hands. He states "The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradespeople generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production."
I think the above is a statement that could be ratified by anybody who has witnessed the growth of Tesco across the UK in the last few years, especially when they launched 'Tesco Express' and moved into providing 'local' stores that displaced many sole traders trying to run an independent village or suburban store. Another example would be the independent record shops or bookshops, that were first attacked by Virgin, HMV, Waterstones and WH Smith, who are now themselves being out-muscled by Amazon.
It is simply impossible for a sole trader or small company to compete with the economies of scale that a highly capitalised market leader can call upon. If Tesco open a new store near an existing general store, they can afford to run that store at a loss for several years if necessary, often providing more convenience by offering longer opening hours and better stock levels than the competition. The sole trader cannot afford to run at a loss, if they slash their prices to compete, they make a loss and have to close. Similarly if they try to keep the store open longer, they have to pay more in wages/lighting/heating and have to put their prices up, making Tesco even more attractive to the shopper and losing them their regular custom. In short, they can't win.
The second section is entitled 'Proletarians and Communists', and deals mainly with the relationship between the Communist Party and the proletariat. Marx asserts that "In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."
This, for me, is where Marx runs into trouble. The statement above contains one massive unproven assumption. It assumes that the proletariat speak with one unified voice, and call for the same things. Just from my own personal experience, it is obvious to me that everybody that I've met, regardless of their wealth or social status, has to one extent or another had their own individual opinions on almost every subject. The idea that all working people without property would have identical views on how a nation, or even the world, should be governed, strikes me as hopelessly idealistic, despite Marx's protestations to the contrary.
The second section also details the changes that the Communist Party would make to everyday life. These include the abolishment of private property (Locke would be spinning in his grave) as well as changes to education (children to be raised and educated by the state, living in state homes, not with their parents)
In effect, Marx argues that by workers producing sufficient for everyone, there will be no need for wages, each will be provided for and able to develop the skills and work in the areas that interest them.
Again, my personal belief is that Marx has once again failed to take human nature into account, as well as Adam Smith's laws of supply and demand. If ninety-nine percent of the population wanted to be doctors, who's going to collect the rubbish? Also, how many of the people that want to be doctors actually have the required intelligence, analytical skills, steadiness of hand, and personality to make a good doctor? Marx does not suggest a mechanism by which he could actually deliver on what he's promised in terms of career choice.
Likewise, suppose an individual decides they want to be something public facing, such as a pub landlord. Among the regular customers are some people that the landlord likes and considers friends, and some other people that the landlord dislikes. The principles of communism suggest that everybody should be treated equally, but there is no profit motive to make the inn appealing to the widest possible customer base, so what incentive does the innkeeper have to not simply make the place entirely to his own tastes, and drink with his friends every evening ignoring (as far as possible) other customers.
In a city, people can just move to another pub, but in a village a partisan landlord could render the local pub unpleasant to all but a favoured few. This is just one example of how an individuals natural tendency to favouritism, renders the system Marx suggests as unlikely to succeed. In order to work, communism would require workers with no strong personal attachments, with the strength of will to consistently refuse their friends, and who were all incorruptible. It's my belief that very few such people exist, and that they are certainly not a majority.
The alternative would be to have inspectors, or officers, who travelled the communist state, judging the impartiality of each establishment. However, this would actually raise the inspector or officer above the proletariat, causing the communist party to have effectively created its own bourgeoisie. Again, I believe that such an inspector would require an iron will to not succumb to the many offers of bribery that would be certain to come their way.
The third section of the Manifesto is entitled 'Socialist and Communist Literature', and is devoted largely to the categorisation and criticism of various types of socialist and communist literature. Marx uses this section of the manifesto to attack other forms of socialism. In it he describes reactionary socialism as being motivated by those who want to take the world back into the feudal system.
Marx also describes Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, as being designed by those who "...want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat."
Lastly, Marx tackles the literature of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. Far from being critical of Critical-Utopian Socialist literature, he embraces it regardless of the fantastic and utopian nature of some of the remedies it proposes. He does this because "...these socialist and communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class."
The final section of the Manifesto is perhaps the least interesting to the modern reader, as it deals largely with Communist Parties relations with opposition political parties at the time that the manifesto was written. As Marx and Engels remarked in the preface to the 1872 German edition "...it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated."
Having read the manifesto in its entirety, my personal feeling is that Marx's observations on the flaws within the capitalist system are well researched, accurate and still applicable today. The UK's current financial crisis is to some extent the natural result of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of global companies (rather than individuals)
However, the communist remedies for capitalism seem to me, to present at least as many problems as they solve, requiring the slavish obedience of every individual within the system for it to work correctly. It's my personal belief that there would have to be a significant fundamental shift in human nature before the communist system became workable, an opinion that seems to have been borne out by those countries that have experienced communism first-hand.
