Skip to main content

Classical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology: Proletarians and Communists

Classical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology
Proletarians and Communists
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Project HomeClassical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology
  • Projects
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

Show the following:

  • Annotations
  • Resources
Search within:

Adjust appearance:

  • font
    Font style
  • color scheme
  • Margins
table of contents
  1. Title Page
  2. Copyright
  3. Table Of Contents
  4. Introduction
    1. Aims and Goals
    2. Organization Overview
      1. Outline of the Textbook
      2. Translating Passages
      3. Modernizing the Text
      4. Some Useful History
        1. Ten Things Marx, Weber, and Durkheim Took for Granted about the History of the World that you Might Want to Read More About
      5. Suggested Further Reading
      6. Timelines (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim)
      7. Major Themes
  5. Downloads
  6. Marx and Engels
    1. Biography of Marx by F. Engels (1868)
    2. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
      1. Introduction
    3. Marx on Wages
      1. Introduction
      2. Ch. 19: The Transformation of the Value or Price of Labor Power into Wages
    4. Marx on Wage Labor and Capital
      1. Introduction
      2. Wage Labor and Capital
      3. The Nature and Growth of Capital
      4. Relation of Wage-Labor to Capital
    5. Value, Price and Profit
      1. Introduction
      2. Value and Labor
      3. The Different Parts into Which Surplus Value is Decomposed
      4. Attempts at Raising Wages
      5. The Struggle Between Capital and Labor and Its Results
    6. Capital, part 1
      1. Introduction
      2. Part I: Commodities
      3. Part II: Transformation of Money Into Capital
      4. Part III: The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value
    7. Capital, part 2
      1. Introduction
      2. Part VII: The Accumulation of Capital
      3. Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation
    8. Eighteenth Brumaire
      1. Introduction
      2. Opening Passages
      3. Part Two
      4. Part Three
      5. Part Four
      6. Part Five
      7. Part Six
      8. Part Seven
    9. Principles of Communism
      1. Introduction
      2. Principles of Communism
    10. The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery
      1. Introduction
      2. The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery
    11. Revolution is Coming
      1. Introduction
      2. Marx's Speech on the Toast to the Proletarians of Europe
    12. The Communist Manifesto
      1. Introduction
      2. Bourgeois and Proletarians
      3. Proletarians and Communists
    13. Concepts/Dictionary
  7. Durkheim
    1. Biography of Durkheim
    2. Rules of Method (1895)
      1. Introduction
      2. Part I: The Rules of Sociological Method
        1. Introduction
        2. What is a Social Fact?
      3. Part II
        1. Chapter 2: Rules for the Observation of Social Facts
          1. Section 1. Treat Social Facts as Things
          2. Section 2. Guidelines for Sociologists
          3. Section 3. Rules on the Distinction Between Normal and Pathological
    3. Division of Labor, Introduction
      1. Introduction
      2. Preface
      3. Book One
        1. Ch. 1: The Method for Determining this Function
        2. Ch. 2: Mechanical Solidarity Through Likeness
        3. Ch. 3: Organic Solidarity Due to the Division of Labor
        4. Ch. 4: Further Proof of the Preceding
        5. Ch. 5: Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity
        6. Ch. 6: Progressive Preponderance cont.
        7. Ch. 7: Organic Solidarity and Contractual Solidarity
      4. Book 2
        1. Ch. 1: The Progress of the Division of Labor and of Happiness
        2. Ch. 2: The Causes
        3. Ch 3. Secondary Factors--Progressive Indeterminancy
        4. Ch. 4: Secondary Factors--Heredity
        5. Ch. 5: Consequences of the Preceding
      5. Book 3
        1. Ch. 1: The Anomic Division of Labor
        2. Ch. 2: The Forced Division of Labor
        3. Ch. 3: Another Abnormal Form
    4. Division of Labor, Book 1
      1. Introduction
      2. Chapter 3: Organic Solidarity Due to the Division of Labor
      3. Chapter 4: Further Proof the Preceding
      4. Chapter 5: Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity; Its Consequences
      5. Chapter 6: Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity, cont.
    5. Division of Labor, Book 2
      1. Introduction
      2. Chapter 2: The Causes
      3. Chapter 5: Consequences
    6. Division of Labor, Book 3
      1. Introduction
      2. Chapter 1: The Anomic Division of Labor
      3. Chapter 2: The Forced Division of Labor
      4. Conclusion
    7. Le Suicide (1897) - Introduction/Book 2
      1. Introduction
      2. Book Two: Social Causes and Social Types
        1. Ch. 1: Method of Determining Them
        2. Ch. 2: Egotistical Suicide
        3. Ch. 3: Egotistical Suicide, cont.
        4. Ch. 4: Altruistic Suicide
        5. Ch. 5: Anomic Suicide
    8. Education and Sociology (1922)
      1. Introduction
      2. The Nature and Role of Education
        1. Part 1: Different Definitions of Education
        2. Part 2: Defining Education
        3. Part 3: The Social Character of Education
        4. Part 4: The Role of the State in the Matter of Education
        5. Part 5: The Power of Education and the Means of its Influence
    9. Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)
      1. Introduction
      2. Part 1: The Sociological Study of Religion
      3. Part 2: Theories of Knowledge
    10. EXTRA: Review of Année Sociologique (1898) article
    11. EXTRA: Review of Suicide by Havelock Ellis
    12. Concepts/Dictionary
  8. Weber
    1. Biography of Weber
    2. Methodological Foundations of Sociology (1921)
      1. Introduction
      2. Methodological Foundations of Sociology
        1. Point 1: Meanings are Empirically Situated
        2. Point 2: We cannot always find the intentions of the actors
        3. Point 3: The goal of interpretation is to generate evidence about the world, and we can do this both rationally and empathetically
        4. Point 4: Meaningless actions are still important insofar they impact social actions
        5. Point 5: Sociological understaning is explanatory
        6. Point 6: Sociological understanding is hypothetical
        7. Point 7: Motives of actions are crucial to sociological interpretation because they are related to causality
        8. Point 8: Meaningless actions are not unimportant, but they are not sociological facts
        9. Point 9: Individuals...are the intelligible performers of meaningful actions
        10. Point 10: Sociology is distinct from psychology
        11. Point 11: Sociology is distinct from the discipline of history
    3. PESOC, part 1
      1. Introduction
      2. Part 1: The Problem
        1. Chapter 1. Religious Belief and Social Layering
        2. Chapter 2. The "Spirit" of Capitalism
        3. Chapter 3. Understanding Luther's Conception of Beruf (Calling)
    4. PESOC, part 2
      1. Introduction
      2. Part 2: The Vocational Ethic of the Ascetic Braches of Protestantism
        1. Chapter 4. The Religious Foundations of Worldly Ascetism
        2. Chapter 5. Ascetism and the Spirit of Capitalism
    5. The Development of Commerce
      1. Introduction
      2. Chapter 14: Points of Departure in the Development of Commerce
      3. Chapter 15: Technical Requisites for the Transportation of Goods
      4. Chapter 16: Forms of Organization of Transportation and Commerce
      5. Chapter 17: Forms of Commercial Enterprise
      6. Chapter 21: Interests in the Pre-Capitalistic Period
    6. The Rational State
      1. Introduction
      2. The Rational State
        1. A. The State Itself; Law and Officialdom
        2. B. The Economic Policy of the Rational State
        3. C. Mercantilism
    7. The Evolution of the Capitalistic Spirit
      1. Introduction
      2. The Evolution of the Capitalistic Spirit
    8. Politics as a Vocation
      1. Introduction
      2. Lecture
    9. Bureaucracy
      1. Introduction
      2. Part 3, Chapter 6, Section 7: Bureaucracy
    10. CSP
      1. Introduction
      2. Introduction on Power
      3. Distribution of Power within a Gemeinschaft Community
        1. Classes
        2. Status Groups (Stände)
        3. Parties
    11. Concepts/Dictionary
  9. Early American Sociology
    1. Biography of Early American Sociologists
      1. William Graham Sumner
      2. Lester Frank Ward
      3. Albion Woodbury Small
      4. Franklin Henry Giddings
      5. Thorstein Veblen
      6. Charlotte Perkinds Gilman
      7. Jane Addams
      8. Robert Ezra Park
      9. Charles Horton Cooley
      10. Edward Alsworth Ross
      11. W.E.B. Du Bois
      12. Charles Abram Ellwood
    2. Comparison of Spencer and Ward by Barnes (1919)
      1. Introduction
      2. The Sociological View of the State
        1. Part I: Sumner, General Characteristics of His Sociological Thought
        2. Part 2: Ward; General Characteristics of His Sociological System
    3. Thorstein Veblen, on Labor(1898)
      1. Introduction
      2. The Instinct of Wokrmanship and the Irksomeness of Labor
    4. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics (1898)
      1. Introduction
      2. Preface
      3. Chapter 1
      4. Chapter 15
    5. Du Bois on The Study of Social Problems (1898)
      1. Introduction
      2. The Study of Social Problems
        1. Development of the Problems
        2. The Present Problems
        3. The Work Already Accomplished
        4. A Program of Future Study
    6. Jane Addams, “Trade Unions and Public Duty” (1899)
      1. Introduction
      2. Trades Unions
    7. Edward A. Ross on Social Control (1900)
      1. Introduction
      2. Social Control
    8. Charles A. Ellwood on Revolution (1905)
      1. Introduction
      2. Revolutions
    9. Charles Horton Cooley, “Social Consciousness” (1907)
      1. Introduction
      2. Social Mind in General
      3. Social and Individual Aspects of Consciousness
      4. Social Will
    10. Lester Ward, “Social Classes” (1908)
      1. Introduction
      2. Social Classes and Inequalities
    11. Franklin H. Giddings on Theory and Public Policy (1911)
      1. Introduction
      2. Theory and Public Policy
        1. Evolution is Simple or Compound
        2. Can war then be outlawed and generally prevented?
    12. Small on the Sociological Point of View (1920)
      1. Introduction
      2. The Sociologists' Point of View
        1. "Why need we study society?"
  10. Creative Commons License
  11. Recommended Citations
  12. Versioning

Part 2: Proletarians and Communists

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:1.  In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.  2.  In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.  The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit.  It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production.  Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property.  It is only the social character of the property that is changed.  It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage-labor.

The average price of wage-labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer.  What, therefore, the wage-laborer appropriates by means of his labor, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence.  We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others.  All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor.  In Communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so.  The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.  But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.  You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labor when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products.  Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you.  What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain.  In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production.  He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists.  The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women.  For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country.  We cannot take from them what they have not got.  Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster.  United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to.  In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity.  When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.  The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development.  But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other.  No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form.  Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.  Political power, properly so-called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.  If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Questions

  1. What is the specter haunting all of Europe? What do Marx and Engels mean by this?  How do they respond to attacks on Communism and Communists?
  2. What do Communists want? Draw a diagram comparing Capitalist and Communist society.  How would education differ between the two? The family?  Work?
  3. What is the role of the State envisioned here? [hint: there are two answers, depending on the stage of communism]
  4. If you were a worker in 1848, what would you have made of this document? If you were a capitalist?  A liberal-minded professional?
  5. It has now been more than 150 years since The Communist Manifesto was written. The world has witnessed a few topplings of capitalism in favor of communism, but many people find these less successful than what was envisioned here.  Furthermore, capitalism is still going strong in the US, France, Germany, and the UK – all places where the Communist revolution was expected to take place. What, if anything, did Marx and Engels get wrong?

Concepts

Bourgeoisie

Proletariat

Lumpenproletariat

Class Struggle

Means of Production

Mode of Production

Capitalism

Communism

Revolution

Annotate

Next Chapter
Concepts/Dictionary
PreviousNext
Copyright © 2019 by Allison Hurst. Classical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org