cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/939684
Hello everyone, welcome to Theory Thursday! This is a community led project, the point of these posts is to read about 30 minutes of theory every Thursday. Then we discuss with fellow comrades the contents of the reading. This week’s topic we are covering Fredrick Engels’ The Principles of Communism, parts 1-13.
The reading: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Discussion
- What was bad about the text?
- What was good about the text?
- Overall, how can we apply this reading to our current conditions?
Next week we will be discussing parts 14-25 of the text. Have a good week comrades, until next time!
- I found the bit about proles potentially being worse off than slaves strange. His predictions about England/France leading the revolution turned out to be incorrect. There was definitely also an undertone of euro-centric elitism in the text. The way he described the ‘civilized’ Europeans spreading technology to the ‘barbarous’ nations is definitely problematic in its framing. This was the knowledge of the time of 1800’s Europe, so reading it today we need to keep that perspective, that doesn’t excuse it though. Engels, in this regard, was definitely a man of his time.
- I thought that the text was very clear and to the point, it left no room for vague interpretation. Clearly explaining the origins of: Proletarians, bourgeoisie, the industrial revolution, comparing proles to other types of workers, the means of production, capitalism’s impact on society, technology, globalization, and periodic market crashes. I like how he really emphasized the roles of competition and private property as key features of the capitalist system. How he explains in grotesque detail how they use all of these things to crush the workers.
- I think mostly all of the themes hold true today. If Engels were to see the state of the world, he’d be shocked at how accurate he was with the far majority of his predictions. The development of globalization and technology’s impact on modern capitalism would probably blow his mind.
I’ll give some of my own thoughts and then add to some of yours.
Principles of Communism was a fun re-read for me, and I found the text much better and more informative than I remember it being from when I first read it during my initial introduction to Marxism. I read it together with the Manifesto and it didn’t really stay in my mind as that much of an important work - it was overshadowed by the Manifesto, I guess. Now, I would definitely say it doesn’t deserve that fate and has a firm place of its own in Marxist theory.
It clearly defines certain important terms and concepts and compares them to similar ones present and even prevalent at the time of its writing, and talks about many thing which we still see today, for example, the periodic crises of capitalism and the realities of class struggle. I certainly see it being a beneficial read for workers organizing in 1847 and can see why it still remains a staple Marxist text, especially one that’s recommended to people newer to Marxism.
As for some of its faults, the big thing that jumps out to me is the talk of labor as a commodity, which is to be expected since this is a text from 1847 and Marx didn’t complete his critique of political economy by then. The commodity which the proletarian sells is later corrected to labor-power which is a change in texts from 1859 onward, and which Engels explains in his Introduction to Wage Labour and Capital quite nicely.
I found the bit about proles potentially being worse off than slaves strange.
This was a quite common assessment in those times. Whether it was correct or not isn’t that clear. Slaves, while not free and, as such, not treated as people but property, were still given food, water, and shelter by the slave owners who has some interest in maintaining them as their property. Of course they were still slaves, and were treated horribly as such, especially in the US South. On the other hand, especially the early proletariat, while recognized as more human than the slaves, was largely just treated as mere labor machines, working longer than 12 hours per day for very small wages and even being worked to death in some cases. They mostly lived in horrid, overcrowded, unsanitary conditions. If they had lost their job, they had no guarantees or social safety nets and would lose their housing and be unable to afford food. Practices of jailing and then basically enslaving through workhouses of people without jobs were quite common. The condition of the proletariat improved massively when it started to organize and gain some ground through class struggle. So, while from our modern perspective a statement like that is clearly absurd, things weren’t so clear back then. The slaves, while their position is clearly worse in general, could have had some better outcomes than the early proletarians.
The way he described the ‘civilized’ Europeans spreading technology to the ‘barbarous’ nations is definitely problematic in its framing.
This is a feature that oscillates back and fourth somewhat in Marx and Engels, although they seemed to form a good anti-colonial line by the end. They mostly - and by Engels’ own admission, perhaps erroneously - focused on the economic side of class struggle, especially in Europe. In terms of solid theory, this is a problem solved by Lenin who fully expands the theory of class struggle to encompass all aspects, and not just the binary of proletariat-bourgeoisie which is dominant in the West. The seeds of this are present already in Marx and Engels, but aren’t conclusively worked out. For a full discussion on this I would recommend checking out Losurdo’s Class Struggle, specifically chapters 4, 5, and 6 - although the entire book is an amazing read.
P.S. - The link to the Principles of Communism in your post just leads to this post and not to the text itself.
This is a high effort response, thank you for that! Your comments on how selling ‘labor’ morphed into a better defined ‘labor-power’ was a great catch. Personally I wouldn’t have noticed it if it weren’t for the footnotes describing that. As far as the slave-prole comparison goes, I can see why people would debate one way or another who’s worse off. Especially considering the time frame this was written in. Personally I don’t see the point in it. Its like debating what’s worse, burning to death, or drowning. The answer is both would be terrible, and there isn’t a great way to measure it, so why bother? Seems kind of irrelevant, just my two cents, maybe I’m wrong here. I’ll have to add that book to my reading list!
Thank you!
there isn’t a great way to measure it
I agree, the answer is far from clear, and it heavily depends on which particular situations are being analyzed and by which metrics.
I also agree about the nature of the debate, but I can see it possibly stemming from the efforts to agitate and organize workers in the European cities, especially at the time and with the conditions being described as worse for the proletariat. This is a useful lens through which to view many of these Marxist texts - they were made in an effort to solve particular questions and practical problems raised at the time, but they still do contain general theory which we can apply to our situations.
I’ll have to add that book to my reading list!
As regards Losurdo, I have nothing but praise for his writing. Class Struggle deals most closely with Marxist theory and is very illuminating in that respect, but all of his works on various aspects of the history of philosophy are excellent! I would say he is by far the best authority when it comes to the various philosophies of the 19th and 20th centuries. The only problem is that not all of his works have been translated to English, but the number is growing.
This is the first time I’ve actually read through this whole piece instead of reading just a few of the points. I was less educated in Marxism when I first read (some) of it, but now the text feels much richer and more informative to me than before. Like what @cucumovirus said in their post, the Manifesto really overshadowed this work in my earlier study of Marxism, but now I see that Principles of Communism is a very clear and informative work and I see why it is so often recommended.
- What was bad about the text?
I agree with the issues being pointed out already in this thread and don’t have much to add on that point.
- What was good about the text?
I think it was good that he covered the questions “In what way do proletarians differ from slaves … from serfs? … from handicraftsmen? … from manufacturing workers?” by explaining the trajectories of their motion as a class toward either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. As he words it in section 5 “two new classes [bourgeoisie and proletariat] have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others”. In each of these sections he explains the individual ground-level moves available to people in these classes on an individual scale, which over time, on the societal scale, causes their classes to gradually drain into being proletarians (for the most part) or bourgeoisie (in some cases).
I’m glad he covers this so clearly because I remember when first being introduced to Marxism, me and others I was studying with were full of questions about people whose relation to the means of production places them outside of being either proletarian or bourgeoisie. I think this explanation by Engels really captures the idea that the relations and processes in motion and development on a society-wide scale are what Marxists are focusing on in most cases rather than what some single individual’s literal current position is in society.
- Overall, how can we apply this reading to our current conditions?
In section 13, Engels writes “the very qualities of big industry which, in our present-day society, produce misery and crises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and these catastrophic depressions” and says that we see “with the greatest clarity” that all these evils are to be ascribed “solely to a social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of the real situation”. This is obviously a point that still stands today, like most/many of the things in this text. I would just say that in our current conditions there are a multitude of present day examples we can point to which highlight the absurdity of how far the capitalist management of society has now strayed from “the requirements of the real situation”. I think on this forum we can all easily think of present day examples right away, so I won’t get into specifics. Additionally, we now also have past and ongoing examples of proletarian-led production/society, experiments and attempts at such on a scale which Engels never got to see, which helps us refine our understanding of how capitalist-led production vs. proletarian-led production “corresponds to the requirements of the real situation” in practice and in the present day conditions.
This is a great response, it’s cool how we all can have so many takeaways from the same text. I too found it interesting that how our class relations over time will funnel into these relationships to production. I had to go back and read your third section a few times to grasp it. You’re right though, I overlooked that key element on my first attempt at reading it. Great observation!
Just an FYI, I was able to find the epub on libgen dot is.
