History Matters - History is Simple

Oct 04, 2025

The Accessible Communist Manifesto: The 1848 Classic in Plain English with Commentary by Karl Mark and Friedrich Engels

After reading Edmond Wilson’s “To the Finland Station,” I thought that the next logical step was to read the Communist Manifesto. Wilson’s book takes the reader through the intellectual history that leads from the earliest Socialist concepts to Lenin’s arrival at the Finland Station in St. Petersburg at the beginning of the Russian Revolution. Wilson does a solid job of presenting the main figures of Socialism in a sympathetic way, while still bringing to life their problematic connection with humanity. Wilson’s book is an erudite survey of the revolutionary left thread of European political history. It provides a solid foundation for reading the Communist Manifesto.

Having read The Communist Manifesto, I understand how and why it has been so compelling to the political left for nearly two centuries. Marx and Engels write with both style and passion. They express their thoughts with flourish. They excoriate their enemies with style. If you share the same enemies as they do, you will be carried along. For Leftists, reading the Communist Manifesto must be like the feeling I get when reading Christopher Hitchens's excoriation of Bill Clinton or Ed Feser's take on the New Atheists.

The rhetoric that Marx and Engels use to sell their ideas is worth studying. The first thing they do is simplify. I am fond of saying, “History is complicated.” For Marx and Engels, history is simple. They make sweeping gestures about complex historical developments that they reduce to slogans. Thus, history – all of it – is about class warfare. “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles” is the first sentence of the Manifesto. Thus, 20,000 years of history, including building pyramids, the long struggle between Monophysites and Chalcedonians, the Nestorian challenge to orthodox Christianity, Mongol invasions, Buddhist missions, human entry into North America, the Mona Lisa, Plato’s dialogues, the Summa Theologica, the Copernican Revolution, the Islamic Conquest from Spain to India, the abolition of slavery in America, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Maxwell Equation, the nuclear bomb, etc., etc., is all reducible to class struggle.

For Marx and Engels, history is not complicated.

This is a brilliant rhetorical strategy. Complexity is unattractive. Simplicity is beautiful. Simplicity appears to be the key to understanding. When you have a hammer, everything is a nail. When you have a simple key to unlocking history, everything looks like the lock the key opens, particularly when your “key” helps you ignore inconvenient details.

Simplicity also serves another rhetorical purpose: it allows the reader to divide the world into two sides —your side and the wrong side. Marx and Engels are very clear that at each stage of history, there are two sides: the rising side that will win, and the losing side that is on its way out. Only a fool would not know which side to pick. Thus, vigorous feudalism spelled the end of imperial Rome, capitalism ended feudalism, and, finally, of course, the proletarians will end the capitalists. It’s simple. One side is destined to win, as history shows, and you would have to be a fool not to pick that side.

Simplicity also allows reification. Words like “Capitalism” become real things with a solidity and agency that we associate with rivers and forest fires. Thus, it is “Capitalism” that tears down feudalism and is the most destructive force in history, constantly on the move, constantly consuming, constantly changing itself.

Of course, this is nonsense. Capitalism doesn’t exist. It is an idea. People exist, and they exist within a culture and/or legal framework that opens or closes possibilities. Some people possess energy and insight, while others don’t. Those who possess the right characteristics are the inventors, reformers, and agents of change. Other people follow or don’t, depending on their own decisions. [1]

Marx and Engels simplify the story by eliminating contingency, which is inherent in human action. For example, America leapt past the rest of the world in microchip technology. However, America was soundly beaten by Russia in terms of vacuum tube technology. By the 1970s, Russia could do things with vacuum tubes that America couldn’t match, but since vacuum tubes could not match microchips, the joke was on Russia.

Why did Russia go down the wrong path? Was it because of a class struggle in Russia? Hardly. Someone in Russia made a decision, and they backed the wrong horse. It wasn’t “Socialism” that failed; it was a Socialist that failed.[1] Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” offers examples of scientists accepting or rejecting scientific ideas based on various reasons other than “class struggle,” which include aesthetic attraction to an idea’s beauty. Other scientists rejected or accepted scientific ideas based on their personal ideologies. Lysenko damaged Soviet agriculture, as well as Soviet science of genetics, by promoting dubious ideas about environmentally caused changes in inherited characteristics. Was this because of “class struggle”? When Russia had to import grain from America because of the destruction caused by Lysenkoism, was that the result of “class struggle,” and, if so, who was on the winning side?

History is complicated. Marxist history is simple. Which is going to be more beautiful and have more rhetorical appeal?

Simplification, either/or thinking, and the reification of concepts into reality are all rhetorical strategies that Marx and Engels employ with devastating effect.

Marx’s fourth rhetorical ploy is the appeal to truth. Just as a heresy is a truth, albeit a partial one, a simplified truth, or a convincing ideology, needs to be based on a partial truth. Thus, Max does not offer a definition of capitalism, nor does he sketch any theory of capitalism. For Marx, it seems that capitalism was simply what he observed the bourgeoisie do when they operated factories, albeit capitalism also involved exploration, trade, opening markets, and making sales. Capitalism was “big business.” Small businesses were the petit bourgeoisie, who were threatened with being driven down into the proletariat by real capitalism.

Capitalism was defined as “exploitation.” The Manifesto explains:

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played the most revolutionary role in bringing us to where we are:
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 remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

Davey, Raymond; Mark, Karl; Engels, Fredrich. The Accessible Communist Manifesto: The 1848 Classic in Plain English with Commentary (The Accessible Classics: Modernized with Commentary) (p. 18). Kindle Edition.

There is a truth here. Capitalism, if I may be allowed to reify, is revolutionary. Gary Will made the same point in “Confessions of a Conservative,” where he described how heartless “capitalism” can be in tearing down a mountain to build a strip mall.

Of course, “capitalism” doesn’t have a heart, but “capitalists” – which is to say, human beings – do.

It is also the case, that when we join Marx in observing the world around us, we see much that is wrong. We do see exploitation and inhuman cruelty in so-called capitalist societies. In Self and Soul, Mark Edmondson describes the wretched condition of children enslaved to work as chimney sweeps in the late 18^th century, who became the subject of William Blake’s poem, “London.” It is an undeniable truth that the condition of these children was an atrocity ignored by the people who owned homes that they did not want to see burned down.

The half-truth occurs when Marx blames “Capitalism.” Over a century of classless Proletarian Dictatorships, ruling over billions of people, ought to have taught us that the exploitation of children has little to do with “class struggle” and everything to do with human nature.

But human nature is something ignored by Marx’s simplistic ideology. Thus, in one breath, he can condemn “capitalism” for what it has done to professionals and the family:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

In the next breath, Marx can tell us that he intends to abolish the family, or at least the bourgeoisie family, which is nothing but the exploitation of wives and children:

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. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

And:

The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

And:

Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

So, “family” in the bourgeoisie sense is not really “family.” Bourgeoisie men treat their wives as prostitutes. The bourgeoisie family is the obscene inverse of what “family” means, and the bourgeoisie are deluded into thinking that their family is really a “family.”

How does that work? It can only work if there is no constancy in human nature that expresses itself throughout time in things like love and the will to do good for spouses and children. If there is no human nature, then this makes sense. If there is a human nature, then Marx’s description of the bourgeoisie family is a wild caricature.

Does Marx’s description of “family” ring true?. Do people in capitalist societies really view their spouses as prostitutes or mere instruments of production? That hasn’t been my observation. It would require a radical mutation in human biology to eliminate the care and concern of parents for their children and husbands for their wives.

Another feature of Marx’s rhetoric is his refusal to define terms. Neither capitalism nor family is defined. What does Marx mean by family? We know what he means by “bourgeoisie family,” but what is this “family” that he will replace the “bourgeoisie family” with? We have no clue.

Let’s chalk up the use of vague terms that can be all things to all men as another rhetorical strategy. It is easier to build a coalition around vague platitudes than around crisply defined programs, as we learned from the millions who voted for “Hope and Change.”

Another example of this is how Marx appeals to the past while condemning the present as dehumanizing. Marx’s appeals are often conservative. He condemns “capitalism” by saying that it has devalued the previously treasured status of lawyers and doctors. He says that capitalism has corrupted the institution of the family. The implication is that things were better in the past and we ought to return to that better time.

But he really isn’t saying that. Communism will make everything better, more rational, and more satisfactory to the proletarian class, but the particulars are vague. In his critique of capitalism, he leaves the reader mourning the fact that lawyers are not accorded the status they once had, but in his proposal, he doesn’t seem to have a place for lawyers at all.

The disconnect between Marx’s program and his solution is pretty jarring. Thus, he calls for revolution on the following grounds:

The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

So, the poor proletarian has lost his national identity. But Marx’s solution is to globalize labor so that the memory of having had a national character will be lost. Marx was famous for participating in international labor movements. Socialism in power in Russia and China claims to exist beyond nationalism. Nationalism is, in fact, a dirty word for the Marxist Left.

Marx is actually saying the “stripping” of “every trace of national character” is a good thing, and one which will accelerate under Communism, but he pitches it to the audience as a bad thing.

The commentary to the Manifesto notes where Marx appears to have been correct. They pointedly do not note in this passage that it is the hated anti-Communists today who are attempting to reverse globalism. It is most definitely not the Marxist Left that is engaged in that project.

We learn from Marx that private property will be abolished. By this, Marx means that property used for production will not be owned by individuals, but by the State, which will be the agent of the proletarian class. Proletarians will still own private property in the sense of owning the things they consume, such as their clothes, books, and food.

It is essential for a prophet not to be true precise, and “private property” as defined by Marx enjoys the right amount of vagueness. Thus, there is no explanation of what to do with consumable property that can be used for production. Is a book a consumable if a lawyer uses it to write briefs? How about a car that is used for vacation travel and an Uber hustle? Someone in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is going to have to make a decision.

Marx is clear that his proposal amounts to totalitarianism, albeit a “democratic totalitarianism.” As the proletariat accumulates power over the state, it will transfer to the state all power:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

So, clearly, the state becomes total.

Don’t worry. By this time, the proletarian class will be the only class, since the other class, having experienced “despotic inroads on the rights of property”, will cease to exist. With the other class liquidated, the class struggle will be over, and there will be no political power, by definition! Marx explains:

Eventually, when society eliminates class divisions and organizes all production through a national cooperative, traditional government will simply fade away. Political power exists only to let one class dominate another. When the working class takes control through revolution and dismantles the old economic system, it will eliminate the very conditions that create class conflict. In doing so, the working class destroys its own power as a ruling class, since there will be no other classes left to rule over.
What emerges is an entirely new kind of society: not one class oppressing another, but a free association where each person’s growth and fulfillment supports everyone else’s growth and fulfillment.

Over a century of proletarian dictatorship has made us not very sanguine about that conclusion. As the commenter notes in an understated way:

This vision proved both inspiring and problematic in its practical application. Twentieth-century communist movements struggled with the transition from one era to another. They often strengthened rather than weakened state power.
Davey, Raymond; Mark, Karl; Engels, Fredrich. The Accessible Communist Manifesto: The 1848 Classic in Plain English with Commentary (The Accessible Classics: Modernized with Commentary) (p. 105). Kindle Edition.

You have to admire the dry way that the commenter uses the phrase “struggled with,” rather than exploited billions and murdered millions.

This book is worth reading. One should read Marx and Engels to see what the fuss is about. The narrative is compelling. The text is a masterpiece of rhetoric. The structure of the book, which provides (a) Marx’s text, (b) a modern paraphrasing of Marx’s text, and (c) a comment on the text, makes the Communist Manifesto quite accessible. The bottom line is that, having read this book, I can see why it had the impact it had.

Footnotes:

[1] This reification of “Capitalism” as an agent that makes decisions and does things is a holdover from Hegelianism, which reified “History,” and had History doing all sorts of improbable things, such as working out its own destiny and having owls fly at dusk.

[2] This is not to say that different cultures can’t contribute to the decisions that individuals make. To the contrary, a belief system can cause individuals to see or ignore options. Likewise, an institution – which is to say, the people within the institution – can establish inefficient or misguided practices, such as concentrating all decision-making in the hands of a particular person or discouraging risk-taking, accountability, or competition.

The Samizdat Reviewer

Discussion about this post