The Communist Manifesto

Part 3 centers on three schools of socialism familiar to Marx and Engels, identifying their problems or inconsistencies and outlining why Marxism is the preferable alternative. The first category is Reactionary Socialism and its three subsets: Feudal Socialism, Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, and German, or “True” Socialism. The second category is Conservative, or Bourgeois Socialism. The third and final category is Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism.

The first category Marx addresses is Reactionary Socialism. This type of socialism has three subsets: Feudal Socialism, Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, and German, or “True” Socialism. Feudal Socialism is the oldest form of socialism. It was set forth by the feudal aristocracy which comprised of mostly French and English nobility. These upper-class individuals styled themselves as socialists not because they hated the new bourgeois class, but rather because they recognized the inevitable by-product of the bourgeois capitalist system: angry proletariats. The aristocrats recognized that a reactionary working class who was determined to change society represented a dire threat to the noble way of life. The Feudal Socialists’ insincere pretensions to siding with the working class were a futile attempt to project solidarity, according to Marx.

Like the nobles of Feudal Socialism, the second subset of Reactionary Socialism, the Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, also feared self-annihilation. They weren’t nobles, but rather solidly middle-class artisans and guildsmen who hovered somewhere between bourgeois and proletariat (hence their name, the Petty-Bourgeois). They too recognized that the progression of the socialist agenda would eventually do away with their status entirely, and the well-to-do middle classes eventually merged with the proletariat.

To their credit, the Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, led by Sismondi, who was the head of their school in France and England, provided incisive observations about the dismal conditions of modern production. They were too intent, however, on returning the means of production to how it was before industrialization—when the middle class guild-types were thriving; more helpful would have been efforts to understand that the framework of property relations needed to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up (30-31).

The third subset of Reactionary Socialism, known as German, or “True” Socialism, took its cue from the French Socialists but lost something during its development. France’s socialist movement was advanced because its bourgeois class was advanced: their power was brought about quickly and decisively by the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799; the Revolution jump-started French bourgeois power by forcibly removing the aristocratic class. Thus in Marx’s eyes, France accelerated through societal stages more quickly than other areas in Europe; their bourgeois class was already at the height of its power, and as a result, French socialism developed quickly. The Germans appropriated France socialist literature, but because the German bourgeois class had barely begun to establish itself, the Germans misinterpreted French socialist arguments as a kind of theoretical exercise. They misunderstood hard-won French demands as an expression of universal human ideals (e.g. “Reason”), rather than practical advice meant to deal with very real problems (33). The result, according to Marx and Engels, was dire for the German proletariat. The noble and petty-bourgeois classes united against the German bourgeois before it could even establish itself. Because socialism could not take root until capitalism was established, this paradox stymied German socialist progress.

After addressing three facets of Reactionary Socialism, Marx turns to the second category: Conservative, or Bourgeois Socialism. This socialism was espoused by well-intentioned members of the bourgeois themselves, like “economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, [and] organizers of charity” (34). Despite their privilege, these bourgeois recognized the human rights issues that afflicted the capitalist society which made them successful. They strived to find ways to improve social conditions for all, but they were unwilling to part with the framework which empowered them. Simply put, they “want[ed] all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom […] they wish[ed] for a bourgeois without a proletariat.” (35). Most damagingly, some bourgeois socialists sought to stigmatize revolutionary action, encouraging non-violent administrative reform. In contrast, Marx argues that only true revolution can dismantle the system (36). Ultimately, bourgeois socialists attempted to advocate for the working class, but not at the expense of losing their own advantages.

Finally, Marx addresses Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. This title is given to the earliest socialists of the bourgeois era, including Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. These socialists correctly predicted and identified the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats, but they did not have a complete understanding of the role of the proletariat. Rather, they understood only that the proletariat was the downtrodden class and therefore in dire need of assistance. They were less interested in the permanent triumph of the proletariat and more interested in the peaceful bettering of society for all classes—even the richest. Predictably, Marx denigrates the Critical-Utopians for being too idealistic, believing that true change could never occur without revolution (36-37).