“So we see: the means of production and exchange, on the basis of which the bourgeoisie was built, were generated in feudal society . the development of these means of production and exchange, the conditions in which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in a word, feudal property relations became more compatible with the productive forces already developed; they have become so many obstacles. They must have been broken; they were broken. Say No to Plagiarism Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay “In Their Place.” free competition, accompanied by an adapted social and political constitution, and the economic and political influence of the bourgeois class. " - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, pp. 477-478 (trans. Robert C. Tucker) Written in 1848 to help the Communist Party outline and define a specific social vision, the Communist Manifesto explores how the bourgeois institutionalization of free trade has become detrimental to human civilization Before describing how free trade has become a burden on societies around the world, Marx and Engels explore the reasons for this situation and look at the origins. of this socio-economic regime By telling their own history of the world – even asserting that “the history of every society existing up to the present is the history of class struggles” – Marx and Engels attempt to reason through their environment. current socio-economic However, by appealing to an unsustainable past to justify their ideals of a stable future, Marx and Engels highlight an irreconcilable irony in their own work, which casts the first doubts about the viability of communism. “We see then,” writes Marx. and Engels, “[that] the means of production and exchange, on the basis of which the bourgeoisie was constructed, were generated in feudal society.” In this section, theorists have described, with numerous anaphoras, the qualities of the bourgeoisie. Now, having addressed who the members of the bourgeoisie are, what they do and who they are not, Marx and Engels turn to discussing their origins. This marks a change in the passages that follow and which explain that the class distinction is still relevant, and this change is also clearly underlined by stylistic devices. The passage begins with a concluding “We see then,” as opposed to the repetitive opening “The bourgeoisie” present in almost every paragraph thus far. The origins of bourgeois societal relations are important to Marx, as is the Communist Manifesto. at its heart, it is interested in the origins of a new set of societal relations: those of the proletariat. It is therefore important for writers to understand how and where the current state of society and commerce arose. (For convenience, only Marx's name will be used from now on. This is done with respect; after Marx's death, Engels wrote in the preface to the 1883 German edition that "The fundamental thought which runs through the Manifesto… this fundamental thought belongs solely and exclusively to Marx, I have already said this several times, but now it must also be found before the Manifesto itself” (472). of production and production', since this set of factors is what he claims to be the "foundation" on which "the bourgeoisie was built". most revolutionary" and "put an end to allfeudal, patriarchal and idyllic relationships. A strange irony poisons the reading of the origins of the bourgeoisie, which, according to Marx, “ruthlessly tore the heterogeneous feudal bonds which united man to his “natural superiors” and left no place between man and man. no other connection than that of one's naked self. interest, that “cash” payment’” (475). Although their characterization is not incorrect, these passages seem to reflect almost a kind of nostalgia for feudal times. Nevertheless, feudal conceptions and practices of commerce prepared the way for the rise of capitalism. Marx offers his explanation of what these conceptions and practices were, designating "a certain stage in the development of these means of production and exchange, the conditions in which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and the manufacturing industry, in the same context”. word feudal property relations”. Nor does he explain what this “certain stage” he is referring to was, nor what was so unique about such a stage that it caused an abrupt shift toward bourgeois capitalism. Furthermore, Marx states this conception of societal relations in several different ways, calling it, in layers: "These means of production and exchange" or "The conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged" or "The feudal organization of agriculture and industry. industry” or “Feudal property relations”. It is clear that these descriptions all refer to a single conception, but Marx uses four levels or definitions to clearly understand what he intends to convey. But even in presenting these four descriptions, Marx does not give any concrete examples (at least not in this passage; perhaps he thinks the text around this passage is specific enough). There are subtle differences between these four descriptions; in the translation, the words "means", "conditions", "organization" and "relations" are all used. These different word choices overlap minimally, and when added together, they present a broader picture than any one of them could present alone. It was not only feudal society that collapsed, but also all its economic systems, as well as all its means of subsistence. Sustainability is key. According to this passage, the “development of these means of production and exchange” was not always subject to collapse. There came a point when this development was no longer sustainable, came into conflict with what Marx calls “already developed productive forces,” and then began to collapse. The European feudal system consisted of serfdom and the retention of large manors or estates. Serfs were peasants who worked for the lords who owned the manors and were the largest population group in feudal society. In many ways, the bourgeois-proletariat divide at the heart of Marx's entire argument is very similar to the lord-serf situation deemed despicable by many at the end of feudalism. Marx himself criticizes this lord-serf division, denouncing the different eras of history and the oppression of one class by another: "in the Middle Ages, he said, [we have] feudal lords, vassals , guild masters-journeymen, apprentices, serfs” (474). He recognizes this constant theme throughout history, but believes that there may be an ultimate progression towards socialism and communism, which would break this chain of unsustainable class relations. The final state of proletarian power would then, of course, be durable, in clear break with all its oppressive predecessors. At this crucial stage which concerns Marx, the.