If You Get Human Nature Wrong, the Whole Thing Breaks Down: Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx-Engels, Vol. 50, pp. 415-434)

          There is one idea in this reading that smacked me across the face. To me, it explained why Communism failed:

          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 press through they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole (425, emphasis added).

          Matching up the right system to complement human nature has been a major theme of the first year readings. There is a lot of interesting stuff in the Manifesto. Marx's and Engels' thoughts on history and class struggle are intriguing. Their thoughts on morality and workers' rights are also interesting.

          But the entire theory breaks down because they miss the mark on human nature. A system that relies almost entirely on virtue will always fail. Humans do not generally "point out and bring to the front the common interests" of all.  Nor do they "always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." No person will do this unless it is in their personal best interest to do this. You can't keep a rabbit in a box and you can't keep a snake in a cage. And you can't expect people to govern themselves based upon virtue alone. I won't dwell on this point any longer as it is a common theme of this blog.

          There is another idea that Adler raised in the study guide that is worth mentioning.  Marx and Engels predicted the collapse of capitalism by the ever widening gap between overproduction and underconsumption. Adler points out that this prediction may have come true if wages remained at a mere subsistence level. This is because if the laboring masses do not have the means to purchase the goods they are producing, then eventually the market will dry up and the whole system will collapse in on itself. But in the 130 years after Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, wages in capitalist countries kept up well enough to generally keep supply and demand in equilibrium.

          In recent years, though, wealth inequality in the US has increased. According to this CNN article, the top 1% now holds 38.6% of the nation's wealth. While the "bottom 90%" only holds 22.8% of the nation's total wealth.

          Is this wrong or bad for our society? I think it is.  And it goes deeper than the fact that 90% of the population may not be able to buy Teslas or put solar panels on their houses. Philosopher T.M. Scanlon gives four reasons why inequality leads to negative consequences for our society.  The basic premise is that if the rich use their money and influence to create rules to benefit themselves and their children to the political and economic exclusion of others, then there truly is no freedom of opportunity. This limits competition and creates an oligarchy that guts our Republican Democracy and limits the voices and opportunities of the masses and their children. Some have argued that the frustration from those whose voices have not been heard by our government has led to the so-called populist rise of our current President.

          While Engels and Marx completely missed the mark on the cure for class inequality, I think they may have correctly identified some flaws in capitalism. And I think some of those flaws are manifesting themselves in our society today. Wealth and class inequality is a problem. Communism is not the cure for this problem. The cure is a subject for great debate and too much for me to try to address in this post.