The Definition of Communism for Students

The Abolition of the Family

    In the second section of the Communist Manifesto, Marx includes an especially controversial idea, stating

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital,

on private gain... The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty."

     This debate is clearly still relevant to America. From education reform to gay marriage, preservation of the traditional American family is the conservative argument for nearly every social issue. On AmericanThinker.com, Larrey Anderson wrote an article entitled "The Abolition of the Family." He makes typical arguments throughout, but one point he makes stands out from the rest. He complains that in stimulus packages, more aid has been given to professions dominated by women (e.g. education and healthcare) than those dominated by men (e.g. construction and manufacturing). He goes on to state that men have a biological need to be breadwinners and that by providing this disproportionate aid, we are contributing to the breakdown of the family. Not only does he contradict his anti-Marxist sentiments by suggesting that government aid be provided to more male jobs, his blatant sexism clouds any logical argument he could have made. In an economic crisis, much construction stops. We stop building and maintain the infrastructure we have until we

are economically prepared to resume growth. Anderson's suggestion that we end our support of, by most standards, mandatory professions such as education and healthcare so we can provide more blue-collar men work is utterly illogical as well as contradictory to his supposed point. His support of "traditional family values" manifests itself as prejudice and sexism. He assumes that women should be the first to sacrifice their jobs in the case of an economic downturn, because he believes that allowing women to work when there are not enough jobs for all men changes social tradition. He also makes the assumption that a man who is not a breadwinner and can't support his family financially is useless and would abandon them.

    At the opposite end of the spectrum lies Li Onesto, who wrote an article entitled "Part 2: Socialism, Communism, and the Abolition of the Family," for revcom.us, the self-proclaimed voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party of America. Onesto's wording creates a feel of radicalism that would be off-putting to any reader not already in agreement with him, but he has effective historical evidence. He discusses the long history of homosexuality, and how the idea that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman is relatively new. By defining marriage and therefore families as changing institutions, he removes the stigma from altering their structures. Though Onesto does not state that the family must break down for a socialist or communist system to be effective, he emphasizes a social freedom that is not present in America today. By eliminating religious and cultural customs, past prejudices are erased and the slate of social tradition is wiped clean. However, even for those who stand to gain most from a change of this type, this may be too high a price.

    I'm not suggesting that children be taken forcibly from their parents and institutionalized Brave New World-style until they are old enough to enter the work force, but certain aspects of Marx's point are valid. As evidenced by the existence of Child Welfare Services, Americans see the need for government

intervention in parenting on occasion. In an age when no man is considered property, the idea that children are under the ultimate authority of their parents, even if those parents do not have the child's interests in mind, is no longer relevant.

    Many parents complain about the education their children receive in public schools, and state that programs like sex education undermine their parental rights. In reality, these programs are nearly always optional. If public education was abolished, parents would be forced to pay for private schooling for their children. Private schools are an option for these parents, but they choose to send their children to public school, often because of financial reasons. They claim that if public education was abolished, their taxes would drop so significantly that they could afford private school. In reality, those with children in school (even parents unhappy with the education offered) are on the receiving end of the deal. They receive a discount-price education because the cost of the education system is spread to everyone, even those without children. These cries of the breakdown of the family by government education are unfounded because parents either make the conscious choice to enroll their children in public school or benefit from a socialist system which they claim to dislike.

    These examples demonstrate that traditional family structure has been weakened over the course of American history, but that this change has strengthened the moral structure of our nation and has only helped those involved. While a complete breakdown is implausible and radical, certain Marxist ideas have been put into place successfully, demonstrating that a more successful society can exist when necessary social changes are made, rather than stamped out because they break from tradition.

Learning From Marx: A Study on Lending Credibility

    Throughout the second section of The Communist Manifesto, Marx is clearly attempting to gain support. The foundation of the communist movement is in the power of the masses, so he employs various rhetorical strategies to convince the proletariat that communism is in their best interests and to combat common arguments against his theories. By acknowledging (and then quickly refuting) other viewpoints, he strengthens his argument. Most everyone who is acquainted with communism understands the basic theory of abandoning individual property, but have pre-formed opinions on why it is implausible and/or evil. By addressing these immediately, Marx himself gains some credibility and is able to present himself as the rational, logical participant in the debate.

    He begins by correcting the misconception that private property is "hard-won, self-acquired, and self-

earned." He makes the bold statement that those who truly work are rewarded solely in capital (which he considers a non-concrete form of property that only leads to a cycle of exploitation) and that those who have true property have had it handed to them. While this is a broad generalization that is often untrue, it does its job. A typical citizen living paycheck-to-paycheck with little reward feels bitterness to those with better opportunities than they have, so they are susceptible to this type of argument, in which Marx dehumanizes capitalists.

    His next strategy is to define his purpose and lay out his beliefs without apologizing for them. The most common capitalist accusation is that communists intend to take their personal property from them. Marx turns this argument around and claims it, stating that that is exactly what he intends to do. He continues to claim that for a majority of society, property does not exist anyway and that the property that does exist is used solely to subject the proletariat to the rule of the bourgeoisie.

    Another major concern that he addresses is the common belief that, in a society of communism, the populace would descend into laziness. The typical argument is that without personal reward, no member of society would work for the betterment of others. His correction to this is his weakest, he claims that the means of appropriating and producing materials, as well as the entire social construct, would dissolve and reform to the point that the incentives we recognize now would no longer exist. He states that society is constantly forming and re-forming, so changes should be welcomed. This statement is one of the few he makes that leaves a logical hole, namely: society is changing, but each step is based on another; at no point in  written history has a society formed that was not at least partially based on past ideas.

    Another tenet of his argument is acceptance of varying viewpoints. Marx claims to be a people's man and, in this section, fulfills that promise. He states that sectarian issues should not be argued over, if a common belief in the value of the proletariat as a whole is shared. This is reminiscent of an Indian proverb, included in religious texts of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi, and Hindu faiths. It discusses a number of blind men who seek to describe an elephant. They each touch a different part and bicker over who is correct in their description,
when in reality they are all touching a different aspect of the same animal. What Marx strives for is to unite all these men (various proletariat-supporting groups with different opinions on specific topics) under the umbrella of his theory. This concept of acceptance was and is effective because the oppressed, those who communism would appeal to most greatly in any case, are searching for a group who will accept them, because they have been rejected time and time again by society.

    Whether or not one agrees with his ideas, Marx's rhetoric is clearly effective. The manner in which he acknowledges opposing viewpoints while simultaneously discounting them is one that can be emulated in any persuasive writing.

We Are the 99%

     From fall of 2011 until early 2012, it was difficult to get away from the Occupy Wall Street movement. From the streets of New York City to the smallest college towns, and on nearly every news source, America saw entitled youth wearing masks and protesting income disparity. Many compared this movement to communism, but if Karl Marx were alive today, it is doubtful he would have supported it.

     The concept of the 99% facing the 1% in a struggle for equality is not unfamiliar to those espousing the views of communism. Marx spends the entirety of the first section of The Communist Manifesto describing the history of class struggles dominating world economic history. In this way, the primary goals of Occupy Wall Street and the communist movement are similar.
     One of the stated goals of Occupy Wall Street was alleviation of student loan debts. Considering that a majority of these protesters were college-educated and in their mid-twenties, this desire is especially telling. They did not represent the working class, the proletariat envisioned by Marx. Over a third of protesters had incomes over $100,000. 76% held bachelor's degrees and 39% had graduate degrees. They much more closely resembled his definition of the bourgeoisie, the elite, educated, and relatively wealthy class. Those who truly desired work and a brighter future were busy at work or job-hunting while these twenty-somethings loitered in parks, demanding legislation to help them.
     Neither communism nor Occupy Wall Street are particularly popular movements. As of January 2012, over half of the country found the protesters to be a public nuisance. Thievery, vandalism, sexual assault, and a host of other serious crimes caused major disruptions, especially in the New York area.While many see communism as government intrusion into citizens' lives, it is based on a principle of cooperative effort. The children of the elite claiming to desire equality for all is both ironic and offensive to those actually in need. To see a perfectly able, educated person complaining about their misfortune while others suffer, without access to food and water, is completely counter to the ideals of communism.
   

Style Analysis of The Communist Manifesto: Part One

     Just as Communism itself was created for the downtrodden, the oppressed, the common man, the proletariat, Marx crafted a deceptively simple description of his ideals to appeal to just these people. Marx's work has resonated with the working class since its inception because it is geared in ideology and in rhetoric towards the people most susceptible to change, those unsatisfied with their current environment.
    Another rhetorical strategy the author uses to sway others' opinions is dehumanizing the bourgeoisie.On page 53, he states that

"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors' and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation."

      Marx's desire is to motivate people who feel oppressed, so by creating an elusive and undefined, cold and calculating common enemy, he unites himself and his readers. He repeatedly connects capitalism to exploitation and brings up examples of situations where people have been exploited by the upper class. Each time he mentions patriarchal systems (e.g. feudalism), which are often looked upon as oppressive, he connects them to a family relationship based on trust and mutual affection. He relates capitalism to ice, nakedness, and selfishness, three of the basest tenets of human existence.
     The bourgeoisie is not the only group portrayed as faceless and nameless. Marx makes a point to describe the proletariat as being stripped of their individuality by the industrial age. Machinery, according to the author, ended the Middle Ages and the division of labor into specialized trades. As work became more and more monotonous, laborers were paid progressively less. This pattern has existed in all civilizations, and each ruling class has descended, first from supposedly divine ruler to monarch, then from monarch to feudal nobleman, then from feudalism to the bourgeois, and from bourgeois to the proletariat. On page 65, Marx uses the word "inevitable" to describe this path, to convince readers of his certainty. His diction reflects no uncertainty throughout the book.
    At the time this book was written, a large portion of the world practiced religion. Marx uses religious imagery to argue his point, saying that in capitalism, "all that is holy is profaned," (54). However, Marx and most communists are staunchly against religion. Just as Mark Twain characterized Jim as stupid before developing him as a caring, wise person, Marx creates a foundation in religion and then brings readers away from it, to avoid alienating his audience.
    The simple style and strong working-class slant fulfill their purpose. This book both shares Marx's ideas and sways the opinions of the masses; his rhetoric is very strong in this manner. One consequence of this is that it alienates anyone with a different viewpoint, successful business owners are characterized as the villains of society, so they would be unconvinced. In this manner, The Communist Manifesto is effective in motivating those who already partially agree but would not be persuasive to any dissenters.