What the Communist Manifesto Got Wrong

The Communist Manifesto is a document that attempts to historicize social phenomena through the lens of the development of production, its processes, and relations. It bridges the temporal-historical gap between the past, present, and future. It starts on a fateful note: "A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of communism." Within a few decades of its publishing in 1850, the Manifesto was living up to its intended purpose as a political manifesto. The Paris Commune in 1871 is the best example. However, certain political developments in Europe and beyond later lent themselves to mechanical readings of the Manifesto not attuned to its dialectical philosophical statement. The manifesto must not be treated as an exercise in pure theory but as a call to action. Its analyses apropos political mobilization is what should determine its problematic aspects.

Firstly, the Maoist interpretation of the Manifesto highlights many of Marx's inconsistencies which are beyond the power of dialectics to explain. Mao's famous declaration that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun is the starkest attestation. Marx is unclear on how the revolution will come about, merely stating that it is inevitable and will be led by the working class. The revolution as a concept is defined as a process by Mao, as was evidenced by his policies after taking over. While that is relatively closer to the method of unity of opposites outlined by Marx, the lack of clarity within the Manifesto as to how that manifests in state-building and policy implementation shows clearly in Maoist China. That is a failure of the Manifesto. While Marx could never have prescribed policies, he never directly negated the use of brutal force in the Manifesto.

Secondly, the Manifesto does not address the political theories of the time. Marx produced a vast amount of literature on his contemporaries, especially on prominent members of his former 'Young Hegelian' clique in Paris and anarchists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin. But the refutation of anti-bourgeois but crassly materialist or overly idealistic socialism is non-existent in the Manifesto, which as a political document seeking to encapsulate the times should contradict the views which indirectly support the bourgeois political economy. There is a practical aspect to this critique too. The Manifesto being a more popular and accessible document has been widely read; if Marx had been able to incorporate elements of his discourse on political philosophy, it would have enlightened a significant number of people.

In conclusion, it should be remembered that despite the failure of Communism and the problems with Marx's dream in the Manifesto, it remains a relevant and important document for our times.