Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto was a significant addition to the study of ideology and rhetoric, as evidenced by the fact that it serves as a model for numerous other manifestos. The Communist Manifesto continues to be pertinent today due to its enduring influence even after the overthrow of numerous Communist regimes. The importance of the manifesto to the study of ideology and rhetoric can be determined by evaluating it with an eye toward its long-lasting impact on other manifestos and its original analytical work. The Communist Manifesto had remarkable consequences that are still relevant today, 150 years later. The book of the Communist Manifesto has been translated into several languages and has been an inspiration for generations of socialists. It might be the only piece of work from Marx that several workers read. The Communist Manifesto book has a literary and dramatic quality making it one of the greatest works of political writing. The book’s powerful arguments and its capability of providing a complete picture remain to overshadow numerous contemporary political work. Europe is haunted by a specter, the specter of communism, and proletarians have nothing to lose.
The Communist Manifesto has two distinct related tasks that have helped in revealing why the manifesto has been so important to the history of ideology. First, Communist Manifesto serves to condense and simplify the human history theory proposed by Marx earlier. The entire Communist Manifesto consists of enumerating the significant effects of the new conception of history and predictions concerning the likely potential developments. It is crucial to distinguish the two modes of historical analysis done by Engels and Marx since, while their description about power relations is painfully accurate, productive, and intelligible. The future predictions of this conflict experience lack of appreciation concerning the human’s capacity for the effectiveness of nationalism and religion, and self-interest in protecting the economic elite’s interests. For instance, Engel’s and Marx argue that bourgeois claptrap regarding education and the family becomes disgusting by the action of modern industry. Moreover, their declaration that “the ruling ideas of each age have always been the idea of the ruling class,” reveals a fundamental problem with conventional theories, particular histories of class conflict, since these histories are always written from the perspective of powerful individuals. However, when Engels and Marx try to argue for some future visions basing on what they term as inevitable developments, they ignore certain fundamental truths concerning the utility of religion and nationalism in the service of economic power.
Despite Engels and Marx admitting that the bourgeoisie struggle with the proletariat is a national struggle, they believe that the global communism will emerge as a result of the nation-less unification of the proletariat, and most of the predictions they made for the future of communism depend on this assumption. Therefore, when Engels and Marx suggest that the theoretical communist’s conclusions express actual relations emerging from an existing class struggle, they inaccurately predict the future of this struggle since they have underestimated the effectiveness of nationality and religion in maintaining the status quo and subverting dissent. For communism to prosper as the way Engels and Marx predict, religion and nationalism must be eliminated, but the two offer no argument as to why communism would accomplish this task. This is the same as declaring that one will win a war when the other party disarms without demonstrating a single reason, since nationalism and religion, are the most potent ideological weapons used by the ruling class to keep populations living under fear, loyal, and pacified. The Communist Manifesto exists as an intermediary king state, which reflects on the history while trying to predict the future, for it be seen as revolving between the modalities of communism’s invocation.
Apart from the contribution to the study of ideology and rhetoric, the Communist Manifesto is still relevant due to its implication on subsequent manifestos and their conception. This is evident in most Avant-grade art manifestos in the 20th century. The reason is that the Communist Manifesto set a bar as an important feature of the historical manifesto.
The increasing condition of capitalism necessitated Engels and Marx to write the Communist Manifesto. These two thinkers believe that the expansion and prevalence of capitalism in political, economic, and social affairs demanded an immediate research. The Communist Manifesto presents a striking and powerful image of capitalism as a dynamic and a constantly changing system that is altering as viewed by the authors. The manifesto also conveys Engels and Marx admiration to several achievements of capitalist development.
The conditions of capitalism entail certain realities where specific reactions must be articulated. For instance, the treatment of capitalist employees is a reality in which a reaction was met. Exploitation of the hardworking employees who received paltry compensations is an example of such condition. Engels and Marx term the exploitation of workers by the bourgeoisie as something that needs a reaction. They also believe that the concept of capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic. The two condemns the few wealthy people who control and discriminates the vast majority.
The Communist Manifesto’s success is evident in two strengths possessed by the book. The book portrays the clearest exposition of revolutionary Marxism ideas and a clarity of language and thought. During the 1840s, Engels and Marx have a sense of strong upheaval in the environment around them. Both viewed the capitalist development in France, Belgium, and England as revolutionary. According to them, capitalist development could ruin the traditional feudal societies that dominated much of Europe resulting in a major economic and social advances for the humankind. The new capitalism with its new ways of coordinating production would conflict with the old ways. Engels and Marx viewed revolutionary upheaval as a result of these conflicts, particularly in their native Germany, that is still composed of a large number of principalities and states, despite being dominated by the eastern military state. The Communist Manifesto also states the contradiction that when the capitalist forces are changing the world upside down, ruining the fabric of old societies, the capitalists cling to traditional ideas, habits, and customs as if they came from an eternal human nature. Furthermore, the capitalists could only see the wrong in the feudal or ancient society and not their wrong ideas.
The Communist Manifesto has completely described the bourgeoisie horror tales of communism that were brought about by the attitudes of the capitalists. Engels and Marx suggest that the capitalist system has pushed everyone to the labor market, enforced migration, torn working-class families apart, and destroyed communities. The bourgeoisie attitude towards family life is extremely hypocritical since it bases its family on the property. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie views sexual morality and monogamy basing on inheritance and women as men’s property who can be bought or sold as prostitutes or wives. However, communism would free women from the enforced sexual and loveless relations by eliminating the economic constraints that dominated marriage and love under capitalism.
The predictions of the Communist Manifesto on the expansion of the working class have been borne out beyond expectation. In every place across the world, the working class is always more organized, more powerful, and bigger than before. Bankers, teachers, nurses, and clerical workers have joined post office workers and transport workers as the new working class. Nations like South Africa and Brazil have experienced developments of the new generation of workers.
Conclusion
The Communist Manifesto is still relevant to date because of the lasting influence it has even after the fall of several Communist regimes. The Communist Manifesto has two distinct related tasks that have helped in revealing why the manifesto has been so important to the history of ideology. Marx argues that bourgeois claptrap regarding education and the family becomes disgusting by the action of modern industry. Despite Engels and Marx admitting that the bourgeoisie struggle with the proletariat is a national struggle, they believe that the global communism will emerge as a result of the nation-less unification of the proletariat, and most of the predictions they made for the future of communism depend on this assumption. Apart from the contribution to the study of ideology and rhetoric, the Communist Manifesto is still relevant due to its implication on subsequent manifestos and their conception. The predictions of the Communist Manifesto on the expansion of the working class have been borne out beyond expectation.
Bibliography
Engels, Friedrich, and Karl Marx. The communist manifesto. Penguin UK, 2004.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist manifesto. Prometheus Books, 2009.
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Martin Puchner. The communist manifesto and other writings. Tantor Media, Incorporated, 2011.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The communist manifesto. Penguin, 2002.
Žižek, Slavoj. "Have Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri rewritten the Communist Manifesto for the twenty-first century?" Rethinking Marxism 13, no. 3-4 (2001): 190-198.
