The
Marxist
Volume: 14, No. 04
Oct-Dec. 1998
Harkishan Singh Surjeet
Why
do
we
revere
Communist
Manifesto
even
after
long
150
years?
For centuries human race was suppressed by human exploitation, national, communal, ethnic and racial oppression, devastating wars and man-made crisis and calamities. Communist Manifesto was the first scientific basis to explain the social causes of these evils and to lay bare the material foundation and objective formulations for putting an end to them. Among the various noteworthy discoveries of Marx, the most important two are: historical materialism and theory of surplus value. It laid the basis of enunciating objective laws of social development and of a science showing how to develop the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and put an end to the rule of capitalism.
While
historical
materialism
provided
the
laws
of
social
development,
surplus
value
revealed
source
of
bourgeoisie’s
enrichment
–
thus
unrevealing
the
mystery
of
exploitation
under
capitalism
and
proving
the
historical
inevitability
of
the
revolutionary
overthrow
of
this
formation.
Marx
regarded
science
as
“a
mighty
lever
of
history,
as
a
revolutionary
force
in
the
loftiest
sense
of
this
word”.
The
combination
of
revolutionary
thought
and
revolutionary
practice
gave
rise
to
the
great
political
ideas
of
Marxism.
The
communist
manifesto
is
the
embodiment
of
revolutionary
theory
and
revolutionary
tasks
and
practice,
the
immortal
value
of
which
will
never
be
exhausted.
The
Manifesto
of
the
Communist
Party
–
the
first
all-embracing
theoretical
document
of
scientific
socialism
originated
as
programme
of
revolutionary
action
with
brilliant
accuracy
and
in
a
form
amazing,
considering
the
force
of
its
impact
and
beauty,
Marx
and
Engels,
for
the
first
time
ever,
fully
expounded
proletarian
ideology
in
the
Manifesto.
The
most
profound
contribution
of
the
Manifesto
of
course
was
the
materialist
conception
of
history
which
it
expounded.
While
the
very
idea
of
a
materialist
conception
of
history,
which
makes
history
an
object
of
analysis
rather
than
a
sequence
of
episodes
and
personalities,
is
itself
a
path-breaking
one,
the
historical
materialism
of
Marx
and
Engels
had
four
distinguishing
features
which
marked
it
out
from
all
previous
attempts.
1.
It
recognised
an
inner
dynamics
in
history
and
located
the
source
of
this
movement
in
the
dialectics
of
the
interplay
between
the
social
productive
forces
and
the
social
relations
of
production,
of
which
the
property
relations
were
the
most
decisive
constituent.
2.
It
showed
how
this
dialectics
is
realised
through
the
agency
of
social
classes
and
class
struggles.
3.
It
specifically
analysed
in
a
brief
but
comprehensive
fashion
how
this
dialectics
was
manifesting
itself
in
the
historical
evolution
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production.
4.
It
explained
why
capitalism
was
the
last
antagonistic
mode
of
production,
how
it
created
the
special
historical
agency,
the
proletariat,
that
would
bring
about
the
transcendence
not
only
of
capitalism
itself
but
of
all
class
exploitation,
and
take
mankind
from
its
“pre-history”
to
its
“history”.
The power of this outlook came not only from the fact that it was consistent, comprehensive and unflinchingly revolutionary, but above all from the fact that it was true. To be sure, the level of comprehensiveness it reached, though adequate for its purpose at the time, could be, and would be, greatly enlarged subsequently both as the focus of attention shifted beyond Europe, and as capitalism itself underwent changes in conformity with the anticipations of the Manifesto. But all subsequent theoretical development represented a concrete application of the basic ideas of historical materialism outlined in the Manifesto, a carrying forward of the quest begun by it, rather than a negation of its basic ideas. And this was not because of some misplaced sense of loyalty to these ideas, but because these ideas were fundamentally true. As Lenin was to remark later: “The strength of Marxism lies in the fact that it is true”. This fundamental validity of historical materialism arises from a specific reason. Marx and Engels attributed it, in a proximate sense, to the fact that they started from “real premises”: “the premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises…the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions of their life, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity”. But this commitment to “real premises” as opposed to dogmas arises from the fact that the Marxist outlook is uncompromisingly revolutionary: it is not blinkered by the need to serve any vested interests; it is not constrained by the need to prettify or falsify reality in the narrow interests of any particular self-serving social class or group. Revolutionary socialism as articulated by the Marxist world outlook has an absolute need for the truth, and it is for this reason that the Manifesto which put forward this outlook as long as 150 years ago has continued to inspire subsequent theoretical development without being negated thereby.
What
is
happening
to
capitalism
in
our
time
will
neither
be
understood
nor
correctly
assessed
if
one
is
not
guided
by
Marx,
by
the
main
work
of
his
life
–
“Capital”.
Lenin’s
teachings
on
imperialism
are
a
direct
creative
extension
of
Marx’s
economic
theory.
Lenin
proved
that
at
this
last
stage
of
capitalism
every
objective
condition
is
created
for
the
transition
to
socialism
and
that
mankind
comes
very
close
to
the
need
for
fundamental
revolutionary
changes.
The
opponents
of
socialism,
talking
about
the
“obsoleteness”
of
Communist
Manifesto
and
Marxism-Leninism,
usually
refer
to
new
phenomena
characteristic
of
present-day
capitalism
when
the
scientific
and
technological
revolution
gave
a
tremendous
rise
of
productive
forces.
Yes,
the
capitalism
of
the
end
of
the
20th
Century
is
different
in
many
respects.
Its
evolution
reflects
the
enormous
growth
of
productive
forces
and
socialisation
of
labour,
the
disintegration
of
colonial
empires,
internationalisation
of
finance
capital
and
the
major
gains
of
the
working
class
and
the
democratic
and
national
liberation
movement.
With
the
major
setback
to
socialism
in
early
90s
imperialism
is
almost
free
to
impose
his
hegemonistic
design
and
an
unipolar
world.
But
the
prediction
of
the
Manifesto
about
the
insurmountable
crisis
of
capitalism
and
its
inherent
inability
to
resolve
the
basic
needs
of
the
society
and
its
people
comes
undeniably
true.
Capitalism
has
forever
lost
the
exclusive
right
to
dispose
of
the
destinies
of
the
peoples
when
socialism,
ushered
in
with
the
Great
October
Revolution,
has
had
its
strong
appeal
across
the
globe.
Capitalism
has,
however,
succeeded
in
prolonging
its
existence.
But
this
has
cost
and
continues
to
cost
the
peoples
very,
very
dearly.
Moreover,
it
has
created
a
threat
to
humanity
itself
on
earth.
Nonetheless,
the
“old
mole
of
history”,
as
Marx
figuratively
described
the
process
paving
the
way
for
revolution,
continues
its
work,
continues
because
the
nature
of
capitalism,
the
essence
of
its
basic
contradictions,
has
not
changed
and
its
social
evils
are
accumulating
and
growing.
Life
has
dispelled
the
illusions
about
flourishing
and
`crisis
free’
capitalism.
At
the
end
of
centuries
of
capitalist
expansion,
here
is
how
things
stand
60%
of
the
world
population
has
5.3%
of
world
output
and
income,
while
more
than
83%
is
in
the
hand
of
the
richest
20%.
Marx’s
prediction
on
this
score
has
thus
been
fully
borne
out.
The
Communist
Manifesto
says,
“The
bourgeoisie,
during
its
rule
of
scarce
one
hundred
years,
has
created
more
massive
and
more
colossal
productive
forces
than
have
all
preceding
generations
together”.
But
in
today’s
context
that
massive
wealth
of
capitalism
is
quite
negligible.
According
to
latest
UN
Human
Development
Report
a
vast
majority
of
the
world
population
have
little
access
to
safe
water
and
food.
In
the
Manifesto,
Marx
and
Engels
accused
the
bourgeoisie
of
creating
a
society
in
which
private
property
exists
for
only
one-tenth
of
the
members
of
the
society
and
“its
existence
for
the
few
is
solely
due
to
its
non-existence
in
the
hands
of
those
nine-tenths”.
It
was
their
precise
scientific
understanding
that
the
subsequent
development
of
capitalism
would
inevitably
fail
to
alter
this
equation
which
is
vindicated
today
after
150
years
–
after
such
an
unimaginably
strong
scientific
and
technological
base
and
the
absence
of
any
threat
from
socialism.
After
such
a
long
period,
the
truth
of
the
words
written
by
its
authors
in
the
preface
to
the
German
edition
of
Communist
Manifesto
in
1872
can
be
remembered:
“However,
much
the
state
of
things
may
have
altered
during
the
last
25
years
the
general
principles
laid
down
in
this
Manifesto
are,
on
the
whole
as
correct
today
as
ever”.
In
the
same
preface
the
practical
application
of
the
formulations
contained
in
the
Manifesto,
they
emphasised,
will
always
and
every
where
depend
on
the
concrete
conditions
existing
at
the
time.
By
creatively
applying
the
Marxist
dialectical
method
in
his
study
of
the
economics
and
contradictions
of
the
capitalist
countries
in
the
new
period,
Lenin
showed
that
in
the
period
of
imperialism
–
the
period
of
the
decline
and
decay
of
capitalism
–
it
is
possible
to
break
the
chain
of
capitalist
states
at
its
weakest
link.
The
aggravation
of
the
contradictions
between
the
imperialist
states
would
help
to
ensure
the
victory
of
the
proletarian
revolution
in
Russia
which,
as
Lenin
argued,
was
destined
to
initiate
the
socialist
revolution.
The
Great
October
Socialist
Revolution
indicated
brilliant
analysis
and
prediction
by
Lenin.
Changes
in
historical
conditions
and
the
practical
experience
of
class
struggle
of
the
proletariat
in
different
countries
undoubtedly
continue
to
necessitate
the
further
clarification
and
development
of
individual
propositions
in
the
first
programme
document
of
the
Communist
Party,
but
its
basic,
most
general
principles
–
those
principles
which
continue
to
serve
as
the
basis
of
the
world
revolutionary
process
–
remain
the
same.
The
Chinese
revolution,
Vietnamese
revolution,
Cuban
revolution,
Korean
revolution
after
Paris
Commune
and
October
revolution,
are
other
landmark
events
for
the
revolutionary
movement,
a
successful
application
of
science
of
Marxism
elaborated
in
the
Manifesto.
Today
there
is
still
a
growing
intense
interest
in
this
outstanding
piece
of
Marxist
literature.
It
is
now
published
in
almost
every
languages
of
the
world
and
is
read
and
studied
everywhere.
Nor
in
this
interest
is
purely
historical.
On
acquainting
themselves
with
the
ideas
contained
in
this
work,
the
working
class
and
the
people
in
general
seeking
economic
and
social
liberation
find
the
answers
to
the
most
urgent
and
controversial
questions
arising
in
the
course
of
their
struggle,
discovered
the
methodology
to
use
examining
the
high
complex
of
phenomena
of
economic
and
political
life,
and
received
tremendous
encouragement
for
their
historical
optimism.
As
any
historical
document,
the
Manifesto
bears
the
mark
of
its
age,
and
is
therefore
best
understood
in
the
context
of
that
period
which
gave
birth
to
it.
Marx
had
concentrated
his
research
mainly
on
gigantic
modern
capitalistic
development
of
his
time.
Thus
the
question
of
working
class
alliance
with
the
peasantry
didn’t
come
prominently.
The
weakness
was
felt
during
Paris
Commune.
Describing
the
Paris
Commune’s
historic
importance
for
the
world
at
a
session
of
the
General
Council
of
the
First
International
on
May
23,
1871,
Marx
said:
“The
principles
of
the
Commune
were
eternal
and
could
not
be
crushed;
they
would
assert
themselves
again
and
again
until
the
working
classes
were
emancipated.”
The
Paris
Commune
was
historically
important
mainly
because
its
government
was
the
world’s
first
government
of
the
working
class,
a
genuine
people’s
government.
During
the
Commune,
the
French
working
class
showed
that
the
time
had
come
when
the
proletariat
was
quite
capable
of
acting
as
leader
of
all
the
progressive
forces
of
society.
By
recommending
that
the
Paris
Commune
should
above
all
win
provincial
support
and
get
assistance
from
the
peasantry,
Marx
confronted
the
Communards
with
the
question
of
the
proletariat’s
allies
in
a
socialist
revolution.
But
when
the
Communards
tried
to
implement
these
recommendations,
they
encountered
sectarian,
mainly
Proudhonist,
sentiments.
Although
this,
first
proletarian
revolution
took
place
more
than
a
century
ago,
the
events
associated
with
the
Commune
have
always
aroused
keen
interest
everywhere
in
the
world.
The
working
class’s
revolutionary
struggle,
which
intensified
after
the
French
proletariat’s
heroic
action,
ie,
after
the
greatest
proletarian
movement
in
the
19th
century,
corroborated
the
enormous
importance
of
the
Commune’s
legacy.
That
was
the
first
historical
acid
test
of
the
Communist
Manifesto.
Dwelling
on
the
objective
reasons
why
this
first
worker’s
revolution
was
defeated
in
spite
of
the
heroism
of
its
participants,
Lenin
noted
that
“two
conditions,
at
least,
are
necessary
for
a
victorious
social
revolution
–
highly
developed
productive
forces
and
a
proletariat
adequately
prepared
for
it.
But
in
1871
both
of
these
conditions
were
lacking.
French
capitalism
was
still
poorly
developed,
and
France
was
at
that
time
mainly
a
petty-bourgeois
country
(artisans,
peasants,
shopkeepers,
etc).
On
the
other
hand,
there
was
no
workers’
party;
the
working
class
had
not
gone
through
a
long
school
of
struggle
and
was
unprepared,
and
for
the
most
part
did
not
even
clearly
visualise
its
tasks
and
the
methods
of
fulfilling
them”.
The
Commune’s
history
corroborated
the
fact
that
the
alliance
between
the
working
class,
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
peasantry,
small
urban
proprietors,
handicraftsmen
and
the
working
intelligentsia,
on
the
other,
is
vital
to
the
victory
of
the
proletarian
revolution.
In
this
respect,
it
is
important
for
the
working
class
to
lead
all
the
foregoing
social
sections.
Since
the
Commune
was
actually
the
outcome
of
a
combination
of
diverse
movements,
its
importance
is
especially
felt
today
in
the
struggle
to
establish
a
coalition
of
all
emerging
proletarian
forces
which
oppose
monopoly
rule
and
imperialism.
The
founders
of
scientific
communism,
Marx
and
Engels,
were
the
first
to
advance
the
idea
of
the
possibility
and
necessity
of
a
worker-peasant
alliance.
They
stressed
that
the
proletariat
must
be
more
than
just
the
ally
of
the
peasants;
it
must
act
as
their
leader,
this
being
its
historic
mission
as
creator
of
a
new
society.
Basing
himself
of
Marx’s
and
Engel’s
propositions,
Lenin
in
his
work
“What
the
`Friends
of
the
People’
Are
and
How
They
Fight
the
Social
Democrats”
(1894),
substantiated
and
further
developed
the
idea
of
the
worker-peasant
alliance
which
was
a
requisite
for
the
working
people’s
successful
struggle
for
social
emancipation.
The
Manifesto
of
the
Communist
Party
summarised,
as
it
were,
the
development
of
Marxist
theory
upto
1848.
Bu
now
the
theory
was
virtually
complete,
and
it
constituted
an
integral
philosophy,
a
radically
new
concept
of
the
cognition
and
transformation
of
the
world.
This
new
concept
formed
the
basis
of
the
programme
of
the
Communist
League,
the
first
international
party
of
the
revolutionary
proletariat.
One of the basic principles of this party and of the teaching that formed the ideological basis of its struggle was and remains to this day – the organic unity of theory and practice. The definition of the theoretical principles of scientific communism in the first two chapters of the Manifesto is therefore logically followed in Chapter III by a critique of various trends for non-proletarian socialism, while the fourth, concluding chapter contains a description of the tactics of the proletariat in various countries.
The
indomitable
force
of
Communist
Manifesto
is
felt
all
over
the
world
even
150
years
after
its
birth.
Despite
setbacks,
distortions
and
deviations
of
the
Communist
movement,
the
teachings
of
the
Manifesto
and
the
influence
of
the
ideas
of
scientific
socialism
are
constantly
increasing
and
the
political
position
of
the
working
class
gains
in
strength.
Thanks
to
the
Manifesto
the
firm
conviction
of
the
people
in
the
final
victory
of
their
struggle
for
emancipation,
freedom
and
progress
at
the
expense
of
immense
sacrifice
has
been
given
a
scientific
basis.
And,
in
this
context
and
idea
expressed
by
Marx
is
as
true
today
as
it
was
in
his
lifetime,
namely
that:
“even
under
the
most
favourable
political
conditions,
any
serious
success
of
the
working
class
depends
on
the
maturity
of
the
organisation
which
educates
and
concentrates
its
forces.”
The
Indian
Communists
have
drawn
great
inspiration
from
this
historic
document.