Why communism is a fundamentally terrible ideology, an analysis of the Manifesto of the Communist Party

You can often hear the opinion that in theory communism is a good idea. It just so happened that every time it was implemented, something went wrong.

What I want to show that it’s not a coincidence, and that communism is a bad idea even in theory. And that communism cannot be implemented in such a way that it turns out well. I will analyze the communist fundamental book - the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels. And if someone tells me that Marx and Engels did not understand communism, then I’ll answer: “I’m sorry - who did then?”

The Manifesto of the Communist Party (hereinafter simply the manifesto) is a rather small book, written in the middle of the nineteenth century. It’s small enough, so that one can read it during a morning coffee. I will provide a summary of its content and main ideas along with my comments.

Preface to the manifesto

In the modern version of the manifesto, several prefaces often precede it, which can be safely omitted, and I truly don’t understand why there are so many of them.

The manifesto itself begins with an already classic phrase

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.

which means that everyone knows about communism, so now it’s time to outline its main ideas.

Prerequisites of communism

The next part of “Bourgeois and Proletarians” explains the prerequisites for the emergence of communism. And it begins with a statement

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Why so - it is not explained. And this statement is a simplistic view of history. After all, someone else may see history as a struggle of nations, men and women, rich and poor, authoritarianism and freedom, different religions, spirituality and materialism, young and old, progressive and conservatives — it all depends on who you ask.

The manifesto goes on to say that the growth of large-scale industry is blurring the boundaries between nations (now this process is called globalization) and it leads to crises of overproduction. And the class that industry gave rise to - the proletarians, that is, the workers of large factories, suffer from this state of affairs. With the advent of better machines, the work of the proletarians is becoming increasingly monotonous and lower paid. The class struggle is simplified to the struggle of the proletarians and the bourgeois, who are called the two largest classes in the manifesto. It’s bourgeois who exploit the proletarians, and the proletarians have to do something about it.

Already from reading the chapter “Bourgeois and Proletarians” it is clear that communism tried to solve a specific problem of the nineteenth century, and the scale of this problem was exaggerated. Industrial revolution really took place that time. Proletarians really appeared and yes - their working conditions were terrible. But either Marx lived right next to the factory, or he simply built a picture of the world for himself in isolation from reality, but there were not that many proletarians, compared to other groups of the population. And surely there could be no more bourgeois exploiters than, let’s say, merchants or artisans. Marx, however, does not ignore other classes, but claims that they are disappearing because…

…the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants… 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…

Marx considers the disappearance of all other classes, except the proletarians and the bourgeoisie, inevitable, although history has proved him wrong by now. What did Marx see? He saw the frenzied pace of building new factories, he saw the industrial revolution in all its beauty and horror, and he did see big capital taking jobs away from small artisans and peasants moving en masse to the city. But he was wrong when he believed that this would go on forever - he was wrong when he believed that this process was linear. And soon we will read what terrible recipes he offers for solving this problem.

And ideas of the communism do not apply to the twenty-first century entirely. Our economies do not consist of only factories, where low-paid workers work, and all the profits go only to the owners of the factories. Today, in general, approximately half of all employees work in the service sector. In industry, complex machines, contrary to what Marx said, take monotonous work away from people and factories require many highly qualified workers. The problem that Marx saw in the nineteenth century does not exist now. And some of if it does - not at the scale he described. And please don’t tell me that Bill Gates with his Microsoft is a terrible bourgeois, and the programmers who work for him are modern proletarians who only dream of overthrowing their hated master. This is a far-fetched communism and I will not believe this fairy tale.

Solutions to the problems of the proletarians

So what are the solutions that the manifesto offers? The next part of the manifesto named “Proletarians and Communists” is about this.

The manifesto openly suggests:

…overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Note that the manifesto does not think in terms of the ideas of democracy. Getting into the parliament is not the goal. The goal is what will later be called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The “dictatorship” is a key word here. It must be taken into account that there were not so many classical proletarians then (and even less so in tsarist Russia). Which means that the minority rule is proposed. And although the symbol of the USSR was the hammer and sickle, where the sickle symbolized the peasantry, the peasantry is not the proletariat. The subordination of the peasants to the proletarians was clearly visible in the USSR, where peasants were forbidden to leave the village, and their property was forcibly confiscated. And the intellectuals were not considered a class at all.

In this place, you can already see a hint of one of the biggest logical errors of the manifesto. I’ll call it the Manifesto Logical Error.

Think about it. The manifesto claims that:

Other classes are disappearing because of the bourgeois system
The proletariat will overthrow the bourgeois system and establish its power

But for some reason the second point does not mean the return of other classes. The proletariat legitimizes the mistakes of the bourgeoisie instead of correcting them. Does it turn out that the proletarian government does not solve the problems of large-scale production, which was brought by the bourgeoisie? Does it turn out that all people are doomed to become proletarians working in boring jobs behind conveyor belts? My question is: does this look like a bright future? If the future is expected to be different, then why should only the proletariat have a dictatorship? This logical error can be seen further in other examples, such as families.

The manifesto then offers its radical solution to all problems:

…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property

This is explained by the fact that feudal property was destroyed by the bourgeois revolution, so the proletarian revolution must destroy bourgeois property. There is no logic in these words, this is just taken for granted. Community ownership is proposed as a higher form of ownership.

The manifesto asks itself the question - what to do with the property that was acquired by one’s own labor? And it answers in its classic style:

There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

According to the manifesto, private property in a bourgeois society exists only in the bourgeoisie, therefore, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, private property can be quietly abolished, because no one has it anyway. And this is the same Manifesto Logical Error as before — the proletariat govetnment is not going to solve the problem created by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has already taken away property anyway - why bother with giving it back? The power of the proletariat, instead of giving an opportunity to accumulate something again with their labor, will simply strengthen this terrible situation.

The manifesto goes on to say that it is necessary to destroy the freedom of trade, buying and selling. Although it is not clear from the manifesto how the proletarians will receive means of living. In general, the manifesto is quite destructive in its essence, it suggests how to destroy and why it should be done, but it does not suggest what to give in return.

The manifesto continues with a radical cry:

Abolition of the family!

This, again, is explained by the fact that in a bourgeois society, only the bourgeois, not the proletarians, can have a full-fledged family. Do you feel the same Manifesto Logical Error? The absence of a normal proletarian family under the bourgeois system is the reason for its abolition even under the communist system. Communism does not solve the problem created by the bourgeoisie, but legitimizes it.

This is followed by the abolition of the “the most hallowed of relations” between parents and children, instead, it is proposed that the child should be brought up by the state. And, surely, the community of all women is proposed. They are shared anyway under the bourgeois system, they are used by exploiters.

It is proposed to abolish homeland and nationality. Because

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got

The manifesto does not explain why the workers have no country. It goes on to say that the proletarians, when they dominate politics, will themselves become a new nation. And in general, national differences are disappearing with globalization - so why not abolish them. The same Manifesto Logical Error - the problems created by the bourgeoisie are not solved by the proletariat, but are legitimized.

For some reason, the manifesto believes that

In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

This statement is also not explained in any way, it is simply taken as a given. Although if you think about it, there is no logic in it.

It is further argued that religious, philosophical and other ideas should be rejected as a relic of the bourgeoisie. After all

…The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

The manifesto does not even strongly object to accusations that…

Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis;

And answers that

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

This is followed by the ten points of the program of advanced communist societies. I will list them in full, but they include: confiscation of land (expropriation of landed property), abolition of inheritance, confiscation of rebel property, compulsory labor for all, and the creation of industrial armies for agriculture. It is difficult to call it heaven on earth. Work is mandatory, property is taken away, it is impossible to accumulate property, since there is no private property.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

According to the manifesto, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, all other classes must disappear by themselves, only the proletariat will remain. Since the proletariat will be the only class, the class society will be a thing of the past.

It is interesting how Marx imagined that the peasants or the intellectuals, such as dentists, would disappear. Are dentists the proletariat? Who in a communist society should treat teeth, design houses or create new cars? The policy regarding the peasants is quite clear - to take away their land (after all, according to the logic of the manifesto, they will still not be able to compete with large industries and will disappear as a class) and force them to work in industrial armies. This is what we saw in the USSR. We have also seen that it led to famines.

Attitude towards competitors and opponents

Next in the manifesto is the chapter “Socialist and Communist Literature”, which is not too interesting for the modern reader. It criticizes various “wrong socialisms”, which do not mention the overthrow of the bourgeois system.

Interestingly, this chapter criticizes the idea of improvement of the proletarians living conditions and economic relations. If the improvement of the life of the proletarians is not the goal of communism, then what is? The answer for Marx is obvious:

abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution

Think about it - a good life is not a goal. The goal is to destroy bourgeois relations. This is an obsessive and unfounded idea of Marx. Here he directly admits that he is not interested in the proletarians and their well-being in themselves. For him, they are pawns on the chessboard. The goal is the realization of his sick delusion — a proletarian revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie he hates.

The last chapter - “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties” is interesting only for historians, no new ideas are presented here. It is being discussed which of the existing parties can be an ally of the communists.

This part ends pretentiously:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

Totalitarianism, the dictatorship of the minority, the destruction of democracy, the violent overthrow of the entire social order, the abolition of all ideas - philosophical, religious and moral, the confiscation of land, the obligation of labor without the possibility of acquiring private property, the prohibition of small entrepreneurs (which logically follows from the prohibition of exploitation and private property ), the abolition of inheritance, the abolition of the family, the community of all women, the confiscation of the property of rebels, the disappearance of all classes of society except the proletarians, the abolition of the nation and the fatherland — these are all the theoretical foundations of communism. This is definitely not heaven on earth.

If you are looking for an ideal society where everyone works for their own and the public good, then look elsewhere. Communism was not created for this.

I used this link for manifesto citations: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm