The Illogical Arguments of the Communist Manifesto Essays

The Illogical Arguments of the Communist Manifesto The Illogical Arguments of the Communist Manifesto The Communist Manifesto (CM), penned by political theorists and philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, is recognized to be one of the most influential documents in the world. The manuscript contains much of its writers own theories on the natural social order, focusing on the idea that a capitalist society would eventually give way to socialism and inevitably communism. While the main goal of the text was to inform the public about the supposedly inevitable arrival of communism and the potential of such a political society, it rather interestingly focuses on the shortcomings of capitalism and how its development into communism is an inevitable class struggle. The rhetoric of the CM was carefully written by Marx and Engels in order for its ideas to sound convincing and logical. However, upon careful analysis, many the arguments made by these two were logically flawed. There are a number of incidents within the CM in which Marx and Engels are at fault for countless types of logical errors, such as contradictions, illogical flow, immature and nonsensical claims, ignoring counterarguments, and cutting explanations short. Specifically, this paper addresses the flaws in the logic of Marxs and Engels arguments concerning their classification of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as well as the flaws apparent in their discussion of wage theory and class antagonism within and among nations. These illogical fallacies throughout the Communist Manifesto undermine the credibility of Marxs and Engels arguments, showing that their theoretical notions and analyses of capitalisms demise and communisms triumphs are susceptible to a high degree of disbelief and thus fatally flawed. With this realization in mind, a reading of the CM would reveal the immaturity and naivety in the early conceptions of Marxism and communism that is apparent beneath the dramatic rhetoric. The logic in Marxs and Engels classification of the bourgeoisie is filled with contradictions and illogical flow, detracting away from their intent to explain the modern bourgeoisie and their inevitable downfall. The authors begin the CM with the line The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles(CM), further stating that the triumphant winner of most recent struggle, the modern bourgeoisie, would just be part of the cyclical nature of this struggle, from Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian oppressor and oppressed (CM). Yet they go on to say that this modern bourgeoisie is unlike anything that has existed before. The authors attempt to address this contradiction by explaining that In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism due to too much means of subsistence, too much industry , too much commerce (CM). While the claim about the unprecedented over-production exploiting the proletariats may be valid, it also go on to say that this state causes the bourgeoisies relations of property [to] became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces (CM). This is the reason that the authors give for explaining the inevitable fall of capitalism, that the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself (CM). In an attempt to overcome this incompatibility, the bourgeoisie [enforces] destruction of a mass of productive forces and by the conquest of new markets and by a more thorough exploitation of the old ones (CM). This explanation for the bourgeoisies attempt to fix its dilemma has nothing to do with its inevitable demise due to some sort of incompatibility between them and the proletariats. This illogical flow causes confusion as to what is the source of the fated fall of the capitalis ts, a point which by itself the authors were keen to stress. It would be difficult to understand what Marx and Engels were attempting to explain about the bourgeoisie if their reasoning is not logical. The fact that true communism never existed may be a result of the authors failure in proposing a solid and logical classification of the bourgeoisie. The confusion as to the legitimacy of the claim of the fated collapse of the bourgeoisie