It is very easy, from a historical point of view, to read a
viewpoint, watch it unfold (and fail) and then return and criticize it.
However, such criticisms must occur in order to see progress and learn from
historical mistakes.
In my opinion, one of the biggest miscues in political and
historical literature was the publication of “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl
Marx, which led to the development of Marxism, a political ideology that
promotes class struggles and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie (the aristocrats)
by the proletarians (the working class).
Marx makes clear distinctions in support of such a
revolution (even through violence) by noting that the bourgeoisie are taking
advantage of the proletarians, stripping morality from society, and turning
everything and everyone into economic capital. Simply put, Marx states that the
working class suffers the consequences of direct exploitation at the hands of
the aristocracy.
The piece of work (which it really is) greatly influenced
intellectuals of the 19th and 20th Century, and it helped
lay the groundwork for world leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin and
Mao Zedong. However, after the fall of communism and the collapse of the USSR,
many in the world began to believe that communism simply does not work on a
national stage.
Suppose Marx’s wishes came true in which the working class,
which is not accustomed to leading industries, managing business, and were not
as educated as the aristocracy did create a class upheaval in which the
bourgeoisie were taken out of power. Then what would happen, and how would it
work?
Would the proletarians become the bourgeoisie and
vice-versa? This result would be utterly disastrous due to the inexperience of
the newly appointed aristocracy.
Although in a different setting, a similar example could be
found in the recent political history of South Sudan, which gained its
independence in 2011. Yet, in the just over two years of independence, the
country has experienced a plethora of issues including mass killings, which can
in part be attributed to a brand new government with no experience at governing
a nation. Similarly, one can only tremor at the inadequacies of an inexperienced
(and uneducated) aristocracy.
The alternative to a reversal in role play between the two
classes would be a one-class system, in which everyone has equal capital and
similar jobs. However, briefly speaking, this does not bode well for society
either because someone must lead industry and organize the working class to
achieve production. Furthermore, where is the incentive for hard work and the
desire to do well if there is no mobility due to a one class system?
A factory with solely workers will not produce goods. Other
jobs are needed such as supervisors, supply managers, business negotiators,
among others, which develops a hierarchical status. There simply cannot be one functioning
class where everyone occupies the same socioeconomic status.
While communism may sound like an idealistic point of view
in which everyone should be equal, there simply is no room for the system in
today’s commercial and industrial society.
Thanks for getting us started, Ty! Very brave move! This is an enthusiastic entry, but it doesn't really treat our reading as anthropological theory. What would it look like if we took Marx's ideas about *how* to understand human history, societies and cultures, and applied these ideas as tools of analysis?
ReplyDeleteI will preface this by saying that Ty gave me full permission to speak freely while critiquing his entry, thanks Ty!
ReplyDeleteNow, while I too may not agree with the intricacies of Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” I can not help but halt critiques to it when as Ty said, “It is very easy, from a historical point of view, to read a viewpoint, watch it unfold (and fail) and then return and criticize it.” In the case of The Communist Manifesto I look from a historical perspective at the reasoning behind its design. Introducing a new theory is the opening of a dialogue and in that way I am thankful for critiques. However to say that “The Communist Manifesto” is one of the “largest miscues” is aggressive to say the least. I am not a Marxist but do think delegacy and diplomacy are pertinent when navigating the ideas of others. There is an art to developing theory and during the time in which Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto the ideas he presented were the desirable alternative to the reality his people faced. Tying in Freud to this critique, I would argue that both were the type of theorists who had the courage to answer a question others were too afraid to approach. Whether one agrees with the approach or not, does not deteriorate the emphasis that developing theories like Marx and Freud had on the proliferation of the fields of anthropology and psychology and many others. I do believe everyone has a right to their opinion, Marx included, and that the end result of a theory should not be the discrediting of the founder of said theory. I often wonder if the Communist Manifesto had produced the utopia it was designed to how history and likewise, Marx’s reputation, would have developed. I digress, the claim that The Communist Manifest did not work and proposing the reasons why after its original debut are done much easier than being the developer of the theory and having the courage to be the first to raise the eligibility of an alternative to whatever current reality society may face. That courage rarely pays off, especially in the case of Marx, but without it we might all be in a very different reality than the one we currently are in; the one we are in because someone was not afraid to question the original and pose ulterior pathways for development.