What Happens

In this third part, Marx and Engels analyze the three types of socialist and communist literature to show how they fail in comparison to their own communist theory. The first of these literatures is reactionary socialism of which there are three subtypes: feudal, petty-bourgeois, and German socialism.

Feudal socialism was the first form of socialism and was created when aristocrats were angered by the emerging bourgeoisie. The modern bourgeoisie is the “offspring” of the feudal aristocracies that created the “revolutionary proletariat.” Aristocrats claimed to have wanted to rescue the proletariat from being exploited by the bourgeoisie, but they ended up replicating this exploitation themselves.

Petty-bourgeois socialism watched the fluctuations between proletariat and bourgeoisie, knowing there would come a time when they would “disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced… by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.” In simpler terms, industrialization was controlling their lives, and the “division of labor” created disaster.

German socialism represents “the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.” However, the Germans developed this form of socialism from a French society that did not resemble their own. For this reason, it was unsuccessful.

The second main literature is conservative socialism. Under this philosophy, the bourgeoisie wants to continue to reap the benefits of exploitative capitalism but do not want the proletariat to suffer for risk of a revolt. Conservative socialism calls for the bourgeoisie without the proletariat. Really, this form of socialism requires that the “proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.” This system could not be established without a subsequent revolution.

The third literature, critical-utopian socialism and communism, has the main aim of the betterment of all classes. It is well-intentioned, but they trust the higher-ups in power to enact this change: “They reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action” and hope to “attain their ends by peaceful means.” Their goals are disillusioned, for, when revolution is about to occur, they do not accept the “emancipation of the proletariat.”

Why It Matters

If a list of failed socialist literature were written today, it would be much longer than in 1848; more socialist theories have since emerged in need of critiquing. In fact, Marx’s and Engel’s own communist theory would make the list, for it too had deficiencies. This is a strange sort of irony that the authors would likely have found most unfortunate.

In pointing out the shortfalls of previous socialist theories, Marx and Engels build their credibility and show that they are well-researched. In this way, communism is glorified because it lacks the negative aspects highlighted in the forms of socialism that had already failed. Present-day readers can also read this list of theories and glean a new perspective on the socialist movements that have taken place after the publication of this book.