Conflict According to Communists

The 19^th century, like any century, was marked with specific periods of violence. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels assert in The Communist Manifesto that such violence occurred as a result of industrialization and the perpetual struggle between the upper and lower classes. Indeed, some events of the 19^th century in Europe act as great witnesses to this claim, such as the peasant revolts, killing of feudal lords, and subsequent abolition of feudalism. Another example can be derived from the actions of cunning conservative leaders of the 19^th century, who used the ideas of the majority of the populace to advance their own agendas for the sake of maintaining power over the masses. However, Marx and Engels also believed that the industrial revolution would end in the same way feudalism did, as a result of massive uprisings and violent actions taken by the oppressed class. While several violent conflicts did occur, the causes of such confrontations not only differed from those predicted by Marx and Engels, but in several cases were directly opposite. Therefore, the communist ideas concerning violent conflicts including indistinct labor, political centralization, and inevitable revolution, were proven incorrect shortly after their publication by the actual events of the 19^th century.

Marx and Engels believed that because of the widespread use of machinery in the development of industry that labor would lose all individual character. They claim that with machinery, laborers are merely required to oversee the proper operation of production and such labor is entirely unskilled. This assertion is even developed so far as to declare “the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class” (72). The authors also contend that because of this lack of distinction between laborers, wages are lowered nearly universally to a level of poverty. This in turn, requires the workers to form groups and move in unison in order to keep their wages at a reasonable level (73). In actuality, little of this occurred. Tradesmen did form several types of clubs including Mutual Aid Societies, Unions, and various nationalist groups. And, in some cases, the groups produced effective strikes in order to increase their rate of pay, such as coal miners were known to do. However, the individuality of labor did not disintegrate as Marx and Engels predicted.

On the contrary, several distinctions were a result of industry. Metal workers of the 19^th century were not dispensable as the labor force depicted in the Manifesto. Universal standards for simple metal parts such as nuts and bolts were not introduced until 1920. Therefore, the production of such parts required very precise craftsmanship. This meant that metal workers had to be highly skilled and years of training were often necessary in order to develop one’s skills and experience. Likewise, the puddler, or steelmaker, not only had to be extraordinarily strong to be able to churn molten steel, but also very knowledgeable about tempering and annealing so as not to ruin the raw material he was working with. Because of the high demands placed on these tradesmen, they were highly sought after and very well paid, proving the opposite of Marx’s idea of uniform, poorly paid labor.

The historical distinctions among sex and age in the work force also contradict the predictions of The Communist Manifesto. The wives and children of miners were often kept away from the more dangerous areas of the mines because of their age and gender. In fact, the United States and German states prohibited women and children from even being on the grounds of a local mine because of the danger. Additionally, the entire textile industry was defined by gender and age, which was generally considered women’s work. While it is important to note that this group of workers was unskilled and easily replaced, like the workers described by Marx and Engels, such conditions were clearly not universal; differences in labor for men, women, and children were not only existent, but also quite obvious. These distinctions prevented the labor force from becoming uniform and uniformly paid. As such, a fair portion of the work force was undeniably skilled and well-paid, leaving no necessity for revolt or revolution.

Marx and Engels also claim that the rise of industry requires that it be widespread: “It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production…to become bourgeois themselves…it creates a world after its own image” (69) and that as such, “modern industrial labor, modern subjection to capital has stripped [the proletarian] of every trace of national character” (75). The first assertion is quickly refuted by the history of Britain, which experienced industrial revolution nearly half of a century before continental Europe. This resulted neither in violent conflict, nor, obviously, in the demise of the greater part of Europe. Marx’s and Engels’s other argument is also laid to rest, but by the actual causes for violent confrontation.

The rise of associations in the 19^th century greatly increased nationalism among European states, despite the insidious uniformity caused by industrialism. This time period witnessed the advent of nationalist groups such as sharpshooters, choral societies, and gymnasts, all of which met under the unifying tri-colors of their nation’s flag. In fact, this very sense of nationalism, not uniformity, was the cause of the majority of military conflicts in the 19^th century. The first example of this is the Northern Italian War, in which the Piedmontese, with the help of the French, drove the Austrians across the northern Italian border in order to make a unified Italian nation. While the peasants still revolted against their upper class oppressors, the creation of the Italian state was inspired by strong feelings of nationalism. Another example of a nationalism-induced conflict is Otto Von Bismarck’s campaign against Austria, seeking to create an independent Prussian state under his rule. Prussian nationalism must have been very strong, for it stirred Bismarck’s troops enough to take arms against Austria, despite the fact that nearly all the German states supported the Austrian empire. Additionally, after the organization of the new Austria-Hungary, several smaller nations rose to declare their independence including the Czechs and Croatians. Clearly, conflict in 19^th century Europe resulted largely from the growth of nationalism, refuting Marx’s and Engels’s idea that widespread industrialism destroys such sentiments.

Finally, The Communist Manifesto concludes by claiming that while the bourgeoisie accumulates its wealth, the proletariat sinks irreversibly into poverty. Because of this progression “the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society…because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him” (76). Therefore, revolution resulting in a proletariat victory is inevitable (77). On the contrary, the rise of industry introduced unprecedented prosperity to the European states. History records a rise in income throughout all classes, affecting every aspect of daily life. Consumption increased everywhere, including a 33% percent rise in meat per capita in the German states. Bread riots no longer occurred, decreasing the amount of local violence. Citizens were experiencing surplus funds and began to spend money on luxuries such as silver watches, sofas, grandfather clocks, and underwear. In rural areas, chairs were purchased to replace hard, uncomfortable benches. The unavoidable decline of living standards predicted by Marx and Engels never came to pass. Furthermore, this rise in living conditions did not result in the proletariat’s dependency upon the bourgeoisie and therefore, did not require a revolution arising from economic causes.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels predicted the rise of communism as a result of an inevitable progress due to the continuous revolution of industry, perpetual decline of the proletariat, and intensity of the eternal class struggle. Some of their observations were quite accurate, such as the idea of oppressors and the oppressed, with the oppressors attempting to retain power. Otto von Bismarck is a perfect example, as one who used the ideas of the common man to unite a nation under his own rule. Louis –Napoleon Bonaparte also exemplifies this description. However, these assertions are little more than observations of human nature. Indeed, beyond recounting basic ideas of human nature, The Communist Manifesto contains the hopes and fears of two men that never came to pass. Not only did the proletariat thrive in the industrial free market, it continues to do so. Also, the violent conflicts that arose in the 19^th century occurred because of nationalism, refuting the idea that industrialization strips a worker of his national identity. Nineteenth century Europe saw the creation of new nation states and a dramatic rise from widespread poverty. Ironically, the uniformity and substandard living so feared by Marx and Engels is more exemplified by the later societies founded on their precepts than the 19^th century continental Europe they warned.