The Communist Manifesto: A Procrustes Ideology

          The mid-1800s in the United Kingdom gave rise to many well known historical facts and significants. On the more lighthearted side of history in literature, according to a timeline published by the BBC, Oliver Twist was published by Charles Dickens.¹ However, history does not shine a bright light on this era. While the Industrial Revolution roared and advanced like a coal fired engine, the smog filled the air and the response in social politics gave rise to ideology. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party, or better known as  The Communist Manifesto. Its original purpose was for congressional sessions held by the Communist League.² Beginning their writing in London, they witnessed the working class (proletariat) struggle with the owners of the means of production, the middle class (bourgeoisie). This piece of socioeconomic, political, and philosophical writing stands the basis, not only for the Revolutions of 1848, but also for the Communist movements of the 20th century. Furthermore, The Communist Manifesto, holds firm to the dangerous ideology of relativism that threatens the Church and the common good of society.

         The Communist factions throughout Europe were becoming bolder. Marx, at the very beginning of the Manifesto writes, “It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.”³ The Communist Manifesto itself served the purpose to unite the many Communist factions across Europe. As a result, it was published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish.⁴ The central premise that is reiterated in the economic struggle of the century was that the working and middle classes were in a heroic battle. However, there is a philosophical and historical premise that precedes all of this theorizing. Marx and Engel write, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”⁵ In the footnotes, they further clarify this statement, which would come to define the entire work. In summary, all recorded history is the history of this class warfare.⁶

          The first section of the Manifesto, which elaborates on the Bourgeois and Proletarians illuminates this materialist approach to history. Marx and Engle conclude that societies have without exception held to the form of an oppressed majority exploited on the backs of an oppressive minority. In the traditional form of capitalism, the working class have an inherent struggle against those who organize and own the means of production.⁷ All compromise and solution to this problem lie in the wake of revolution. The bourgeoisie is revolutionary in that it revolutionizes “the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production.”⁸ However, Marx and Engel argue that the only true revolutionary class is that of the proletariat: “Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.”⁹ The proletariat will recognize their true part in the mechanism and turn toward violent overthrow in exchange for their seat at the table.¹⁰

          The subsequent sections of the Manifesto elaborate on the relationship of the Communists with the working class. Here, the Communist party stands to represent the working class across international borders and without limitation to nationality. Their aim in the mechanism of class-struggle is the movement towards a class-less society without the presence of private property.¹¹ Radically, they call for the following changes to society such as: “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes … A heavy progressive or graduated income tax … Abolition of all rights of inheritance … Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels … Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state … Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State … Equal liability of all to work … 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 … Free education for all children in public schools.”¹² It is interesting to note how many of these ideals are true for modern society. And, while the Manifesto does call for the end of many social injustices, such as child labor, many these ideals for a “perfect society” threaten the livelihood of many as well as the social doctrine of the Catholic Church.¹³

          A response to this can be summarized via a popular Greek myth. “One size fits all” is a very familiar phrase, especially when shopping for that perfect item (an apt capitalist analogy for a discussion on Communism). Procrustes, the son of Poseidon, was a strong, built like a robust man, who always carried a sword or smith’s hammer in hand.¹⁴ Diodorus Siculus, an ancient Greek historian, wrote that Procrustes had an outpost on a wayward path, and in this cave he had a bed.¹⁵ Whenever a passerby came, Procrustes invited them to spend the night in this bed. However, if his guest was too small to fit the bed, he would stretch and contort them to fit. And, if his guest was too tall, he would cut off the limbs to allow them to fit the bed perfectly.¹⁶ One size truly never fits all in the truest sense of the word “all.” This is the error of the ideology that promotes relativism and radical secularism. The Soviet Communists took to this error like fish to water. They aimed to repress morality of the Christian European world and to replace it with their own “one size fits all” ideology.¹⁷ The Church totally rejects the totalitarian regime of Communism.¹⁸ Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI, along with Marcello Para, dig further into what they surmise as the downfall of Europe. Benedict XVI writes that, “The decline of a moral conscience grounded in absolute values is still our problem today. Left untreated, it could lead to self-destruction of the European conscience, which we must begin to consider as a real danger . . .”¹⁹
          The stretching of material circumstance and the radical call for the end of the family and rights of private property (the pursuit of happiness) have almost become the new norm for Europe. Para and Benedict XVI correctly point how this has come to be — the ideology of relativism. Due to political correctness, it is now incorrect, according to its proponents, to say that one social institution is better than another. However, Pera points out that in modern day many Muslims come to Europe and its democracy because they find the environment superior.²⁰ There is also, in addition to this, the rapid deconstruction of traditional values. When we attempt to integrate newcomers to our country, political correctness tells us it is no longer considered appropriate. Integration is now seen as offensive and an imposition of values. While many countries of the world today accept immigrants from across the world, Communism would strip them of their property and practices. This brings about an even deadlier blow to society and the fabric of Europe — religious plurality.²¹ When relativism takes over, why bother even having a discussion anymore. All truth becomes objective in their own right and unable to be combated with another.²² This is the fatal flaw of relativism and how Communists perceive a solution to the world’s problems — cut it off, they are too big for the bed. 

  Christianity on the other hand promotes life and an ultimate desire for the future, not just in this world, but in that of the next. The promotion of the family is the key to this future, a future that is dim in the family-less worldview of the Communist.²³ Having children envisions a future and a hope for it. As Pope Benedict XVI points out, Europe now sees children as a threat to the here and now, saying, “As if they [children] were taking something away from our lives.”²⁴ Instead of holding hope for the future and having children in that light, there is hesitancy rooted in a fear of liability that has caused the natural life cycle to be interrupted. Maybe Europe is destined toward an end in this regard. This lack of the family and the desire for children is also paired with the loss of the focus on the dignity of the human person — abortion and contraception have flourished. The dignity of the person has been sacrificed for the freedoms Europe now places its foremost trust in, for example the freedom of speech. Even more troubling is the loss of self-love. Instead of focusing on its own culture and heritage, it tosses them aside and gives into multiculturalism.²⁵

  One size truly does not fit all. Europe, with its Christian roots and its essential democratic lifestyle, in both the government and in economics, cannot look past this. Europe has ended up cutting off its own limbs or stretching them beyond proportion in order to accommodate the new style of relativism. Europe must begin to establish itself again in the way it began — through the Christian faith, democratic way of life, and the importance of the family and the human person. It is apt to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church and how it describes the family: "The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom."²⁶ Only when Europe returns to this way of life can it begin to heal and return to its true flourishing potential. We must realize that the narrow road is hard and full of sacrifice. Imagine us as Theseus navigating the devastating and thorny path of cultural politics. We proceed on our long journey, but we struggle and have hardships along the way. Wouldn’t a bed to lie down on this journey sound heavenly?²⁷ This is what Procrustes offers to travelers on their way. The advice given: “Don’t lie down.”

Footnotes

¹ “Victorian Britain,” in BBC History, at bbc.co.uk. 

² Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, trans. Samuel Moore, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Vol. 1 of Marx/Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), 2. 

³ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 14. 

⁴ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 14. 

⁵ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 14. 

⁶ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 14. 

⁷ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 14. 

⁸ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 16. 

⁹ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 20. 

¹⁰ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 20.  

¹¹ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 22. 

¹² Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 26-27. 

¹³ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 27. 

¹⁴ “Procrustes and the Culture Wars,” American Scholar 68, no. 3 (1999), 5. 

¹⁵ “Procrustes,” 5. 

¹⁶ “Procrustes,” 5. 

¹⁷ Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera, Michael F. Moore, and George Weigel, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2007), 74.

¹⁸ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 2425. 

¹⁹ Benedict XVI, et al, Without Roots, 74.

²⁰ Benedict XVI, et al, Without Roots, 14.

²¹ Benedict XVI, et al, Without Roots, 23.

²² Benedict XVI, et al, Without Roots, 26.

²³ Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 24. 

²⁴ Benedict XVI, et al, Without Roots, 66.

²⁵ Benedict XVI, et al, Without Roots, 79.

²⁶ CCC, 2207.

²⁷ “Procrustes,” 11. 

Bibliography

Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera, Michael F. Moore, and George Weigel. Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2007.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Trans. Samuel Moore. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Vol. 1 of Marx/Engels Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969.

“Procrustes and the Culture Wars.” American Scholar 68, no. 3 (1999): 5–11.

“Victorian Britain.” In BBC History. At bbc.co.uk.