The paper “The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto,” written by Boyer, uses an economic and historical context to dispute Marx and Engels’ “Communist Manifesto.” According to Boyer (1998, 160),” The Communist Manifesto was only helpful in the 1840s and cannot be applied in the recent years from the 19th century.”). The central argument of Boyer is that Marx wrote this Manifesto during the “hungry”1840s, years when there was a collapse in the economic sector, and communism was well thought of during the coming up of the ideologies of European politics. Therefore, this article targets to demean the Communist Manifesto by highlighting that this collapse of the economy was the only event in European history.
Boyer attempts to discredit Engels’ observations due to the adverse economic conditions he encountered in his cotton family’s firm located in Manchester. Boyer identifies how Engels explains capitalism by his exposure to the underlying views on the industrial development in England’s urban centers and the adverse living conditions in these cities. Moreover, Boyer uses data that shows the error of Engels’ view that Lancashire was distinctive, which is against the adverse labor division. This article also illustrates the assumptions on the history that recent assessments of the cities located in Edwin Chadwick’s show sanitary conditions of the Great Britain population providing labor (Boyer, 2021). Boyer argued that there is a huge difference comparing the other industrial cities and Manchester as evidence of the rarity of massive utilization of the workers.
Furthermore, claiming that there was no revolutionary resistance in England is incorrect, as there were several strikes by workers in the 1830s and 1840s. Boyer tries to use Manchester and Lancashire as good examples of the inequality experienced in England, which was not the case (Beattie, 2022). This entails a misrepresentation of the people of Manchester despite their prior actions and struggles.
Boyer analyzes the Communist Manifesto using several data sources, including the data on the unemployment rate, where estimates were computed from the record of trade unions. Boyer (1998,161) identifies that “The estimates of the annual unemployment rate from 1855 to 1914 were available but only for several cities at different times, and much of the data is unreliable.” As a result, most historians don’t agree on the degree of unemployment in the 1840s. The nominal wages used were deflated using Williamson’s and Lindert’s cost of living. Cost of living estimates is derived from Lindert and Williamson. The biological indicators of living standards also indicate that economic conditions worsened in the late 1830s and early 1840s. Life expectancy at birth in England increased from 37.9 years in 1814–18 to 40.8 years in 1829–33 (Boyer, 1998). This was a result of the economic changes within England.
When unemployment is factored in, the standard of living of manual workers from 1837 to 1848 appears to be even worse. Following the boom of 1835–36, the British economy suffered a severe slump, leading to a drop in exports to the United States caused by the American economy’s sharp downturn. Several factors contributed to the downturn’s severity, including poor grain harvests in 1838–41 and the resulting high grain prices, increased imports, and balance of payments deficits. According to Lindert and Williamson, non-agricultural unemployment was not unusually high in the 1840s (Whaples, 2018). The two try to explain that the national unemployment rate in 1842–43, the worst years of the depression, was 9.4 percent (Boyer,1998). Even if this estimate is correct, unemployment in the early 1840s was higher than in the 1820s or 1830s. Assuming the salaries of employed manual workers were roughly the same in 1830 and 1840, like Feinstein, Horrell, and Humphries’s estimate. In that case, their annual income must have decreased on average.
Boyer’s thesis is not persuasive since it ignores some aspects of great importance. This includes strike movements on labor, exploitation of work provided by children, young women exploited in textile mills, and other industrial policies prevalent in England. He only considers two cities, Manchester and Lancashire, which does not provide a comprehensive scenario of the exploitation experienced (Boyer,1998). Boyer also uses selective economic data, too narrow and does not bring a more competitive edge than Marx and Engels’ article. Thus, Boyer’s thesis cannot be relied upon for a proper study of the background history of the Communist Manifesto.
Boyer also does not consider the impact of capitalism in the cities of Manchester in a more comprehensive way than Marx does. This limits the extent to which his analysis can be trusted. It, therefore, leaves some biasness unanswered which should not be allowed. In his analysis of the data, small samples of data were collected, which cannot represent the whole ideology under the Communist Manifesto.
Furthermore, claiming that there was no revolutionary resistance in England is incorrect, as there were several strikes by workers in the 1830s and 1840s. Boyer tries to use Manchester and Lancashire as good examples of the inequality experienced in England, which was not the case (Beattie, 2022). Boyer’s thesis highlights vital factors that counter the weaknesses experienced by Mark and Engels’ perspective concerning the Communist Manifesto. However, it has its drawbacks that need to be considered before relying on the article for a proper judgment. Boyer’s thesis, therefore, has its own weaknesses. As a result of this, more comprehensive research on the Communist Manifesto needs to be carried out factoring out all the appropriate information for proper decision making.
References
Beattie, Ian. 2022. “Taming modernity: The rise of the modern state in early industrial Manchester.”
Boyer, George R. 1998. “The historical background of the Communist Manifesto.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, no. 4: 151-174.
Boyer, Marcel. 2021. “Beyond ESG: Reforming Capitalism and Social-Democracy.” Available at SSRN 3786967.
Giurge, Laura M., Ashley V. Whillans, and Colin West. 2020. “Why time poverty matters for individuals, organisations and nations.” Nature Human Behaviour 4, no. 10: 993-1003.
Hill, Dave, and Alpesh Maisuria. 2022. “Social Class: Education, Social Class, and Marxist Theory.” In Encyclopaedia of Marxism and Education, pp. 624-643. Brill.
Kalita, Bhrigu, and Nalbari Namati. 2021. “MARX’S CONCEPT OF CLASS STRUGGLE: A STUDY.”
Marx, Karn, and Friedrich Engels. 2021. The Communist Manifesto by Karn Marx and Friedrich Engels. BEYOND BOOKS HUB.
Neilson, David. 2018. “In-itself for-itself: Towards second-generation neo-Marxist class theory.” Capital & Class 42, no. 2: 273-295.
Rikowski, Glenn. 2006. “Ten points on Marx, class and education.” In Renewing Dialogues Seminar IX, University of London, Institute of Education, pp. 1-13.
Trkulja, Jovica D. 2018. “Manifesto of the Communist Party: Reception and criticism.” Sociološki pregled 52, no. 2: 628-652.
Whaples, Robert. 2018. “Unequal Gains: American Growth and Inequality Since 1700 by Peter H. Lindert and Jeffrey G. Williamson.” Journal of Southern History 84, no. 1 (2018): 144-145.