A review on the “Communist Manifesto”

-Arpan Garai

The communist manifesto is a political pamphlet written in 1848 which was published in
London, it was written by German Philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It presents
an analytical approach to class struggle and the conflicts of capitalism. It mainly talks about
how means of production should not be controlled by a certain group of people. Economic
freedom and the antagonism of class struggle in the modern feudal society are some of the
other important aspect that are mentioned in the manifesto. Bourgeois and Proletarians are the
two-main class that is discussed in the manifesto. Bourgeoisie means the class of modern
capitalist, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. Proletariat
are the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, they
are reduced to selling their labor power to live.

The class struggle between the Bourgeoisie and proletarians gives rise to economic injustice
which in turn causes maldistribution. we must analytically consider the socio-economic
injustice to understand how it give rise to maldistribution. These kind of injustice is deeply
rooted in the political and economic structure in the society. The Bourgeoisie control the modes
of production in the society, so there is no economic freedom left to the proletariat when it
comes to how they want to utilize these modes of production. The proletarians also face
“economic marginalization” which means they are confined to undesirable or poorly paid work
or being denied access to income-generating labor altogether as they do not own the means of
production. Army of laborers are crowded into factory and are made to work under the
Bourgeois class which also shows class dominion. The proletariat are also denied adequate
standard of living as they do not have an actual choice of earning a livelihood.
Economic injustice also leads to cultural injustice which can be seen when it comes to
working class. When the proletariat are economically marginalized they also face cultural
discrimination. When a class of people are not allowed economic freedom that by itself
categorize them into a class. As the proletariat do not have enough capital to have their own
modes of production, they are exploited in terms of their labor. A worker is generally paid in
terms of their labor power but labor is always more than labor power. The difference between
labor and labor power is appropriated by the Bourgeoisie as a result the proletarians are
economically exploited.
“Thus, the Marxian working class is the body of persons in a capitalist society who
must sell their labor power under the arrangements that authorize the capitalist class
to appropriate surplus productivity for its private benefit.”
These injustices are mainly the matter of distribution. They are exploited, as wage labor can
never create any property for the working class. It creates capital which exploits wage labor
and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labor for
fresh exploitation.

“… 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 specialized skill is
rendered worthless by the new methods of production”
According to the manifesto one of the important reason of maldistribution and exploitation is
due to automation and scale of production. Due to automation, the number of jobs are reduced
which means that the proletariat face competition within its own class. This is leveraged by the
Bourgeoisie and the proletariat is forced to work for minimum wage. As a result, the working
class is continuously exploited.

“He becomes an appendage of the machine and it is the simplest and the most
monotonous, and most easily acquired knack that is required of him.”
In proportion therefore, the repetitiveness of work and wage labor are inversely proportional
to each other. So, the wage worker is not properly compensated as there is no opportunity of
creativity and individual character. Also with the extensive use of the machinery in the modern
times and due to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost the value of creative
know how. Due to modernization, simple laborious job is not valued as much and the labor
power of the working class have been reduced to a mere commodity.

“Political Economy and culture are mutually intertwined, as are injustices of

distribution and recognition”. The question is whether this view of class fits the actual historical
collectivities that have struggled for justice in the real world in the name of the working class.
“A class only exists as a collectivity by its position in that structure of its relation to other
classes”. The remedy for the injustice, consequently, is redistribution, not recognition.
Overcoming class exploitation requires restructuring the political economic structure to alter
the class distribution of social burdens and social benefits.
“The task of the proletariat, therefore is not simply to cut itself a better deal but to
abolish itself as a class”
The aim of manifesto is not to uplift proletariats but to abolish Bourgeoisie as a class
completely. In Marxian conception, such restructuring takes radical form of abolishing the
class structure. To abolish capitalism, class movements have adopted reformist strategies of
seeking recognition of their difference within the system to augment their power and support
demands, which is termed as affirmative distribution by Nancy Frazer. “By affirmative
remedies of injustice, it means remedies aimed at correcting inequitable outcomes of social
arrangements without disturbing the underlying framework that generates them”. Whereas
affirmative remedies can have a negative effect of endorsing class differentiation,
“transformative remedies tend to blur it”.
“…and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the
whole nation, the public power will lose its political character…”
According to the manifesto if all extension and instruments of production is owned by
the state and all along with it if the other suggested remedies can be adopted then Proletariats
will be able to abolish class antagonism and class supremacy and it will result in “…an
association, in which the free development of each is the condition is the free development of
all”.
The consequences of maldistribution can be clearly seen in the case of distribution of wealth
in India. According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report (2017),
top 10% of the households held 52.9% of the total wealth
of the country in 2002 which increased to 62.1% by 2012. The corresponding share of
wealth held by the top 1% also increased from 15.7% in 2002 to 25.7% in 2012. The
share of wealth held by the top 1% in India is only second to the United States among
 the major countries for which the data is available. The Gini of wealth in India in 2017
is at 0.83, which puts India among the countries with highest inequality countries. The
increase in wealth inequality is consistent with the trend of rising inequality in the
country in other dimensions.
Four out of ten billionaires in India have inherited their wealth. “Clearly the wealthiest in India
have made their fortune from crony capitalism rather than through innovation of rules of
market” (Oxfam). According to the recent World Inequality Report 2017 the difference in rural
wage have also increased considerably. In 2004 there were 12 billionaires, 2012 there were 46
billionaires and in 2017 the number increased to 101 billionaires (Forbes) this is a clear proof
that if the modes of production are not taken away from the hand of the capitalist then the
Bourgeoisie will keep on increasing their wealth, while the working class gets exploited.

Gandhi and Walton in 2012 have compared the total wealth of resident Indian billionaires to
the GDP of the country(Oxfam). According to them,
the wealth of Indian billionaires was less than 5% of the GDP until 2005 but increased
sharply to 22% in 2008; it however declined after the financial crisis to 10% in 2012.

By
 the latest estimates, the total wealth of Indian billionaires is 15% of the GDP of

the country; this has risen from 10% only five years ago. Interestingly, almost 40% of
Indian billionaires have inherited their wealth; the inheritors account for almost two-
thirds of the total wealth of billionaires.
One of the ongoing commentators of this is Piketty (2014) who contends that disparity and
monetary advancement don't pursue such a form relationship. The way of monetary
development, disparity results are additionally prompted. Piketty's contentions are established
in the political economy approach which proposes that financial development may really
expand the convergence of riches and salary among the rich. Piketty has contended that a
market-based economy, left to itself, contains ground-breaking powers of union and
dissimilarity.
So, it is additionally certain that the idea of increment in imbalances is resolved by the
underlying enrichments as well as by the disparities in access to circumstances. The general
population who have less financial assets are probably not going to be treated similarly as those
with more assets, and furthermore have unequal access to circumstances. The rare sorts of
people who control financial assets would then be able to utilize it to impact political choices,
obstructing majority rule procedures and social attachment. Imbalance would likewise make it
hard to completely use the intrinsic capacities of destitute individuals. So, redistributive
strategies that diminish ineffective abnormalities would enhance, and not obstruct, monetary
development (Oxfam India).
Bibliography:
1. India Inequality Report 2018 by Oxfam.
2. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.
3. From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age by
Nancy Frazer.

Disclaimer: I have heavily relied upon the above-mentioned sources and all the statistical data
mentioned in my essay are from sources which were mentioned in the India Inequality Report
2018 by Oxfam India.