By Sam Marcy
From unpublished notes written in 1983.
Of
all the great classics in the treasury of Marxism, "The Com mu nist
Manifesto" unquestionably stands out as the most popular and widely
read throughout the world. Bourgeois ideologists, even the most virulent
opponents of Marxism, never fail to be astonished by the persistent attraction
the Manifesto has for each new generation of revolutionary militants.
The Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
in 1848, is a creative revolutionary synthesis of propaganda and agitation,
as these terms were originally defined by George Plekhanov when he was
still a revolutionary Marxist.
"Propaganda" was then understood as the presentation
of many complex ideas to a small group of people, while "agitation"
was conceived as the presentation of a few ideas or a single idea to a
large audience. Of course, there’s no wall between the two.
The Manifesto illuminates a great number of complex ideas.
It presents the materialist conception of history in
clear, brilliant language. It traces the history of the class struggle
from its earliest days to 1848. It analyzes the rise of the bourgeoisie,
explains its revolutionary role—and not only analyzes the intermediate
classes in bourgeois society, but also mercilessly exposes the nature of
capitalist exploitation and oppression as it had never been done before.
The Manifesto’s diagnosis of capitalist society
is at the same time a prognosis of the destruction of capitalism at the
hands of what the Manifesto calls the "grave diggers" of capitalism—the
revolutionary proletariat.
Not just a critique but a guide to action
Far from being merely a criticism of feudal and bourgeois
society, the Manifesto thus unequivocally points the way to the revolutionary
overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
Furthermore, the Manifesto subjects to critical analysis
the nature of the capitalist state, as well as the role of the family,
religion and culture.
Above all, in tracing the development of the proletariat
from its earliest days in mere handicraft production to its role in large-scale
industry by 1848, the Manifesto points to the "proletariat alone as
the really revolutionary class" and the historic agent for constituting
a new social order, free of exploitation or oppression.
All of this is propaganda—irreplaceable working-class
propaganda. Yet at the same time it is also revolutionary agitation
of the highest order. It fans the flames of revolution.
On the one hand, the Manifesto directs itself toward
presenting a succinct, coherent and lucid exposition of the basic principles
of Marxism. To that extent, it directs itself to "the few"—not
necessarily the middle class, but the advanced sections of the working
class.
On the other hand, with its ringing call to overthrow
the oppressors and exploiters, the Manifesto addresses itself directly
to the broadest and widest sections of the working class.
It is this dialectical unity of opposites—propaganda
and agitation—so skillfully blended together that makes the Manifesto
such a monumental achievement.
Nothing could be a more crystal-clear call to the proletariat
than the final paragraph of the Manifesto.
It ends with this ringing call to action:
"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.
"Workingmen of all countries, unite!"
Such a mighty clarion call for revolutionary worldwide
action by the proletariat has yet to be surpassed.
Marx and Engels were not unaware that the working class
was a narrow segment of society at the time the Manifesto was written.
As Engels said in the 1890 preface to a Polish edition of the Manifesto,
"Few voices responded to ‘Workingmen of all countries, unite!’
when we proclaimed these words to the world ... on the eve of the first
Paris revolution in which the proletariat came out with demands of its
own."
However, wrote Engels, "On Sept. 28, 1864, the proletarians
of most of the Western European countries joined hands in the International
Workingmen’s Association." And even though that International—the
first attempt at a world organization of the proletariat—lasted only
a few years, said Engels, it left a glorious heritage.
National chauvinism vs. internationalism
Just prior to the start of World War I, the working-class
movement in Europe, under the leadership of the Social Democratic parties,
reached the zenith of its authority over the broadest masses on the continent.
Immediately after the outbreak of the war, however, the movement was virtually
smashed as a result of the betrayal by the Social Democratic leadership.
The adherents of revolutionary Marxism—in reality
the adherents of the prin ciples enunciated by the Manifesto—were
temporarily reduced to a small minority. The majority had succumbed to
chauvinism. They had forgotten one of the principal tenets in the Manifesto:
that the workers in a capitalist country have no fatherland. "The
workingmen have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not
got."
The Social Democratic leaders’ surrender to chauvinism
cost the proletariat dearly in World War I: millions upon millions of lives
lost and untold devastation and destruction.
Nothing so much arouses the prejudices of the bourgeois
ideologists, nothing so much enrages them and exposes their deep-seated
chauvinism, as the question of "patriotism," the "defense
of the national interest." Today, more than ever, this invariably
means the defense of the capitalist state and giant finance capital.
Any lie, any falsification will do to corrupt, vulgarize
and distort the real meaning and significance of the defense of one’s
country, as it was understood both in Marx’s time and in the imperialist
epoch.
Marx and Engels had written extensively about the autonomy
and unity of each nation. It is well known that they had fought for the
independence of Poland, Hungary, Ireland and Italy. Engels wrote in 1893
in a preface to the Italian edition of the Manifesto that the defeat of
the 1848 revolutions resulted in "the fruits of the revolution being
reaped by the capitalist class."
"Through the impetus given to large-scale industry
in all countries," he wrote, "the bourgeois regime during the
last 45 years has everywhere created a numerous, concentrated and powerful
pro letariat. It has thus raised, to use the language of the Manifesto,
its own grave-diggers."
Engels then added this remarkable thought, as pertinent
today as it was then: "Without restoring autonomy and unity to each
nation, it will be impossible to achieve the international union of the
proletariat, or the peaceful and intelligent cooperation of these nations
toward common aims."
The progressive epoch of the bourgeoisie in the struggle
against feudalism—especially the period when Marx was writing—demonstrated
a trend toward diminishing national differences and antagonisms. It was
due to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the
world market.
The subsequent evolution into monopoly capitalism diverted
this trend. Indeed, capitalism has not been able to carry out a single
one of its economic trends to its ultimate conclusion.
The classical example of this is the failure of the various
trusts and combinations, through the process of competition, to be converted
into total monopoly and become a worldwide trust or "super imperialism,"
which Karl Kautsky thought would abolish the anarchy of capitalism.
As industrial and technological development grows by
leaps and bounds, monopoly capitalism, rather than narrowing national differences
and ameliorating national oppression, exacerbates them. It is no wonder
that the bourgeois world is literally divided into oppressing and oppressed
nations.
But this does not at all disqualify the class struggle.
It merely imparts a greater urgency for the revolutionary cooperation and
solidarity of all the workers in both the oppressing and oppressed nations—in
a common struggle against imperialism, capitalism and all forms of bourgeois
reaction and feudal rubbish left by centuries of oppression.
The revolutionary contribution of the bourgeoisie, as
Marx explained, was in developing the world market, which has "given
a cosmopolitan character to production." This has greatly increased
the strategic role of the working class in production and in relation to
the class struggle.
Marx’s words are even more true today: "In
place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency,"
the bourgeoisie has tremendously enhanced "intercourse in every direction,
universal interdependence of nations."
The bourgeoisie cannot create even the semblance of world
unity, despite the obvious foundations laid by the gargantuan growth of
the productive forces and the ensuing economic interdependence.
Only the proletariat in alliance with the oppressed peoples
and the socialist countries can lay the political and social foundations
for worldwide solidarity. This is precisely because only socialism, which
is based on planning and the common ownership of the means of production,
can purge the worldwide market of its imperialist chaos, its unpredictable
crises, and the reign of the arbitrary based on superprofits.
Indeed, the world market, as Marx said, "makes national
one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible."
It inevitably generates proletarian class solidarity—the truest basis
for bringing about the solidarity of the human race.
|
