The Communist Manifesto in the Light of Current
Anthropology
Paper Presented at the International Conference to
Commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the Communist
Manifesto
Social Emancipation 150 Years After The Manifesto
Havana, Feb. 17-20, 1998
Presented by
Eugene E. Ruyle
Department of Anthropology
California State University, Long Beach
Long Beach, CA
90814
562 985-5364
email: eruyle@csulb.edu
web: http://www.csulb.edu/~eruyle/
Abstract
For one hundred and fifty
years, the Communist Manifest has inspired revolutionaries to commit their
lives to the struggle for social justice. But neither Marx nor Engels saw the
Manifesto as the last word in revolutionary thought, and the theory and
practice of revolutionaries have undergone continual change and development
since the Manifesto was written.
As the Manifesto continues
to be read and re-read, it is important to bear in mind all that has happened
since 1848. It is also important that the Manifesto be read in the light of
whatever advances have been made in bourgeois social science since Marx and
Engels wrote.
Both Marx and Engels were
avid students of the anthropology of their time and made copious notes on such
anthropological works as Lewis Henry Morgan¹s Ancient Society, which formed the
basis for the classic work by Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property,
and the State.
Anthropology has made
significant advances since the time of Marx and Engels: spectacular fossil
discoveries, uncovering the remains of ancient civilizations, and more careful
observations of non-Western peoples. Equally important are the theoretical
advances which require us to shed our Eurocentrism and understand non-Western
peoples in their own terms.
This paper will explore how
such advances might contribute to a re-reading of the Manifesto to better
prepare revolutionaries for the coming struggles of the twenty-first century.
**************************
The Communist Manifesto in the Light of Current
Anthropology
The world has changed since
the publication of the Communist Manifesto. Marxism has changed. And
Anthropology has changed. Today, I would like to review how the changes in
Anthropology might contribute to our evolving Marxism.
Both Marx and Engels were
careful students of the anthropology of their time and made copious notes on
such anthropological works as Lewis Henry Morgan¹s Ancient Society. These
formed the basis for the classic work by Engels, Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State.
Anthropology has made
significant advances since the nineteenth century. There have been spectacular
fossil discoveries. The remains of ancient civilizations have been uncovered.
And the database of Anthropology has been improved through more careful
observation and analysis of non-Western peoples.
The theoretical advances
within Anthropology are equally important. The establishment of a professional
anthropology in the twentieth century was marked by the development of cultural
relativism. No longer were "primitive"
cultures seen as stages through which Europeans had already passed, but rather,
in the words of Roger Keesing (1981: 111-112) each culture came to be
³seen as a separate and
unique experiment in human possibility‹as if each were a differently colored,
separate piece in a mosaic of human diversity, to be studied, and valued, in
its own right.²
This amounted to a
Copernican revolution in Anthropology (Clastres 1977). Rather than seeing
Europe as the sun around which all ³primitive² and ³underdeveloped² societies
revolve, we now see the West as but one facet in the mosaic of the human
adventure on earth. This is not intended to denigrate the contributions of
Western civilization but rather to place them in a broader perspective.
This changed way of thinking
has far-reaching implications in every field of study, including Marxism. Let
me review the development of Marxism in light of this Copernican revolution in
Anthropology.
Marx was heir to the
Enlightenment, and shared its Eurocentric view of progress. European capitalism
represented the highest phase of human development and the socialist future
would be built by the workers of the same nations that led the world into the
capitalist present.
In the nineteenth century,
this view seemed reasonable enough in light of the Paris Commune and the growing
strength of the socialist movement in Western Europe.
In the twentieth century
however, the vanguard of world revolution moved out of the imperialist nations
and into the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America‹to Cuba and
the Philippines in 1898, China in
1900, Russia in 1905, Persia in 1906, Mexico in 1910, China again in
1911, and, once again, Russia in 1917.
These revolutions ushered in
a new phase in the history of class struggle. This transformation occurred
under the leadership of Lenin and the Communist International.
Lenin saw that the
capitalist system had become a global system of imperialism in which
capitalists exploit not only their own workers in Europe and North America, but
also the peasants and workers of the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa, and
Latin America.
Lenin changed the slogan of
revolution from ³Workers of the World, Unite!² to ³Workers and Oppressed
Peoples of the World, Unite.² Under Lenin¹s leadership, an alliance was formed
between workers and peasants, symbolized by the hammer and sickle. This
alliance led to the historic socialist revolutions of the twentieth century in
Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam.
Marxism-Leninism became a
world movement and put down deep roots in cultures throughout the world.
However, it remained essentially European in its outlook, in its view of the
past, present, and future.
It is here that modern
anthropology may make a contribution.
If we review the history of
our species, we see that Western dominance has occupied but a fragment of
humanity¹s existence on earth. The few hundred years of European domination of
the world has been very brief considering the five thousand years since
civilization began in Asia and Africa and the five million years since our
species separated from our apelike ancestors in Africa.
Our Eurocentrism should be
further limited when we consider how it was that the West rose to world
domination.
The conventional wisdom
would have us believe that Europe advanced and became ³developed² while Asia and
the rest of the world stood still and remained ³underdeveloped.² But as Marx
clearly showed in his chapters on the primitive accumulation of capital, Europe
financed its industrial revolution through the plunder of the non-Western
world:
³The discovery of gold and
silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the
aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East
Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of
black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist
production.² (Marx 1867:751)
The emergence of capitalism,
the creation of a world market, the development of modern science and
technology, and the Industrial Revolution were European achievements, but they
were built upon the earlier achievements in science, technology, and economics
of the Afro-Asiatic civilizations, and they were paid for by the plunder of the
non-Western world. In this sense, they were achievements of our species, not
narrowly European achievements. Europe may have gained the benefits, but the
rest of the world paid the costs.
This process transformed not
only Europe, but also Asia, Africa, and Latin America. As Europe advanced and
industrialized, the rest of the world was de industrialized and pushed
backwards in terms of social and economic development. This is the process
which Andrew Gunder Frank (1967) has called ³the development of
underdevelopment.²
What we see in the
non-Western world, then, are not precapitalist social formations, but social
formations which have been transformed by capitalism. We can no longer see the
non-Western world as ³primitive,² ³traditional,² or ³precapitalist,² but rather
as a particular form of capitalism: underdeveloping capitalism.
The conventional wisdom sees
as a ladder on which the West occupies the highest rung. We see a teeter-totter
on which the West has moved up by pushing the rest of the world down.
From this perspective, the
so-called ³advanced² capitalist nations of Europe and North America take on a
different appearance, for the opposite of ³underdeveloped² is not ³advanced,²
but ³overdeveloped.²
Rather than a world divided
into ³advanced² and ³backward² nations, we see what Bodner (1984:4-6) has
called
³a worldwide combination of
overdevelopment and underdevelopment that can be called
"mal-development." The
symptoms of overdevelopment‹dependence of complex bureaucratic technologies and
institutions, overconsumption, industrial pollution, and interpersonal
alienation‹are most apparent in countries like our own. The outward signs of underdevelopment
are most apparent in poor countries.
However, both aspects of mal-development can be found in most nations of
the world.²
There is more here than
simply a shift in terminology. The term "advanced capitalist nation"
implies that the Western nations, especially the United States, represent in
some ways a norm towards which all other societies are tending or should be
striving to achieve. This necessarily distorts our concept of socialism and our
view of the future.
Marx never drafted a
blueprint for socialism, and different people have different views about what
socialism and communism may look like in the future. Nevertheless, there is a
widespead view that socialism will be an affluent, industrial social order
within which the predominant life style will not be that different from that of
the upper middle class in Europe and North America. People will live in single
family homes with appropriate kitchen appliances, electronic gadgetry, and one
or more family cars. What will be new is that this life style will be
accessible to everyone. Poverty will be eliminated, and everyone will enjoy a
comfortable, affluent, bourgeois life style.
We may question whether this
is desirable. We must question whether it is possible. The alienating culture
of overconsumption pursued by perhaps one fifth of our species consumes
probably four fifths of the
earth¹s resources. As this culture spreads, it simply hastens our rush toward
ecological catastrophe.
This raises profound
questions for social policy and personal responsibility. The Communist
Manifesto of one hundred and fifty years ago does not, and can not, provide us
with concrete answers.
I am not sure that we need
to totally abandon the concept of progress, but I think it is essential that we
abandon Eurocentric views of progress. Western industrial capitalism is not the
norm toward which all societies tend, and it cannot be the model for the
socialist future.
Clearly, we need to re-think
our concept of socialism, and take some lessons from the small scale societies
of the Third World. The socialism of the twenty-first century will probably not
be centralized and bureaucratic, but more community oriented, people centered,
democratic, environmentally sensitive, and ecologically sustainable. In a word,
it may not have much resemblance to what we have in the West.
In conclusion, let me quote
from the Brazilian Bishop Pedro Casaldáliga when he was asked what people in
the United States should do when confronted with the poverty of the Third
World:
³The only legitimate
response for a conscientious and Christian First World is to commit suicide.
Let me explain. To commit suicide as the First World. The reason is very
simple. The only reason there is a First World is that there is a Third World.
With that I have said everything. Everything about dependence, cultural
domination and economic exploitation. So only to the extent that the First
World stops being first will we be able to stop being third. In the United
States and in Europe, I think the church should be a kind of ³fifth column²
dedicated to undermining the present undemocratic capitalist system, to end
imperialism and all forms of domination and cultural colonization.²
(Casaldáliga 1987:15)
These Christian thoughts
would surely have warmed the hearts of the authors of the Communist Manifesto.
References cited:
Bodner, Joan. 1984. Taking
Charge of Our Lives: Living Responsibly in a Troubled World. San Francisco: Harper &
Row.
Casaldáliga, Pedro. 1987.
³Democracy is participation.² Maryknoll
July 1987
Clastres, P. 1977. Society
Against the State: The Leader As Servant and the Humane Uses of Power Among the
Indians of the Americas.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Mole editions. (Original French edition, 1974.)
Frank, Andrew Gunder. 1967.
Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution? New York: Monthly Review Press.
Keesing, Roger M. 1981.
Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective. 2nd ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A
Critique of Political Economy.
Volume 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. (Reprinted, Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1965.)