The Communist Manifesto: A Classic Rhetorical Argument

For the last century, the greatest threat to the modern world was the Cold War; the threat of global nuclear destruction was a real possibility for over four decades and billions of lives were at risk due to the differing political philosophies of two superpowers. The United States government portrayed the communist ideology of the Soviet Union as a great evil and even today, communism has an undesirable connotation in America. However, very few Americans understand the basic principles of communism. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 by two social thinkers, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, in a call for action against the system of economy employed by a majority of Western nations.

The 19th century witnessed the birth of the Industrial Revolution. The economic shift from small-scale production to production on a large-scale changed the lives of millions of people worldwide as well as altering history forever. The economic theory of capitalism governed this economic shift; the elite upper class, or the bourgeoisie as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels referred to it, controlled the means of production – the factories, the industrial equipment, and the capital, or money, needed to run the factories. Meanwhile, the massive working class, or the proletariat, would work in poor conditions for low wages. The authors argue that capitalism merely concentrates wealth into the hands of the few, and in doing so, power as well – “Capitalism has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization.” The proletariat is forever confined to remain in poverty – “No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” Therefore, The Communist Manifesto argues that capitalism will ultimately fail due to a revolution by the proletariat. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels effectively employ the art of rhetoric in outlining the goals and theory of communism as well as convincing the reader to take a specific course of action: revolution against capitalist society.

The writers’ argument to the audience includes a solid foundation in the three rhetorical appeals, established by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. These appeals serve to persuade the reader of the argument presented. The first is logos, the logical appeal; it concerns how effectively the authors reason to the audience. The second is ethos, the appeal of the writer’s credibility and how trustworthy the authors appear to the reader. The last is pathos, the emotional appeal which concerns how the writers trigger emotional responses in the audience in a manner in which most agrees to the writers’ aims. Used together, these appeals can greatly impact the strength of the points presented.

The Communist Manifesto opens with a chilling yet intriguing line: “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism.” Here, the writers’ goal is to gain the attention of the reader through the use of the emotional appeal. The reader who is not familiar with the objective of communism is encouraged to continue reading. The authors then make use of rhetorical questions to further pique the curiosity of the reader: “Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?” Marx and Engels take advantage of the common perception that those who wield power are wicked and immoral and the audience wonders why the communist party is so forcefully attacked by those in power. The writers also engage the pathetic appeal of the audience by mentioning some of the less significant harms of communism. They argue that capitalism has destroyed many traditional values. It has “stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. It has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.” The objective is clear: Marx and Engels wish to arouse the anger of the proletariat through the skillful use of rhetoric.

After the authors have gained the attention of the reader, they attempt improve their credibility so the reader more readily accepts the argument given – “To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.” The concept that the writers are a part of an international organization certainly helps their image to the target audience of millions of the 19th century working class. The fact that the manifesto is to be published in seven different languages also shows the high degree of organization of the Communist Party, further boosting their credibility and further compelling their target, the proletariat, to accept their argumentation.

At this point, Marx and Engels have secured the attention of the reader and displayed their credibility. Their final goal is to persuade the audience of the harms of capitalism. To accomplish this, the authors employ a vast amount of logic to convince the readers. Through the use of a syllogism, a logical argument that has both a major premise and a minor premise, both of which lead to a conclusion, the authors present their argument that in capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie take advantage of, and oppress the proletariat. The major premise that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” sets up the contention that capitalism takes advantage of the working class. Marx and Engels then give examples: “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed…” The minor premise is that in the industrial society, the bourgeoisie have most of the power. The implied conclusion is that the rich and powerful bourgeoisie oppress the poor and weak proletariat.

While the appeals to emotion, credibility, and logic compose the substance of the argument in a manner that most effectively persuades the audience, the canons of rhetoric dictate the process in which the persuasive reasoning is to be given to provide the greatest response from the reader. In other words, the appeals concern “what” is to be said in the argument, whereas the canons concern “how” the argument is delivered. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels expertly employ the three canons which apply to written works of persuasion: inventio, or invention, dispositio, or arrangement, elocutio, or style. Marx and Engels show that their extensive use of the canons of rhetoric serves to magnify the strength of their argument.

The first canon of rhetoric, invention, is the category of rhetoric that determines what the authors’ argument will compose of. Marx and Engels create a strong logical presentation. Without even providing historical examples, their message is evidently clear to the audience. One valid point mentioned by the writers is that capitalism “compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” Any reader today would instantly see how this statement is logical – countries which have not conformed to capitalism have lost out on the trade needed to sustain a decent quality of life and embargoes, or refusals to trade with nations, have crippled healthcare in nations such as Cuba. The fact that one can see McDonald’s and Coca Cola advertisements in even the remotest places on Earth also strongly supports the idea that capitalism creates the world in its own image. Another such example of the use of logic by the writers involves the argument that the middle class cannot survive; it will eventually fall into the proletariat itself – “The lower strata of the middle class … all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.” Today’s reader is currently witnessing this very phenomenon. In America, the middle class is steadily shrinking. The rich are getting wealthier while more and more of the middle class sinks into the lower class. Through the force of the logical argument, the authors have applied the canon of invention well.

Arrangement, the next canon of rhetoric, deals with the order of a persuasive work so as to convince the reader of an argument. There are six parts of arrangement: the introduction, the statement of facts, the division, the proof, the refutation, and the conclusion. The canon of arrangement is meant to first attract the attention of the audience. Next, the facts of any given argument are presented as well as the logical arguments and a refutation of the opposing views. Finally, a conclusion is given to summarize the points made. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels introduce the subject of communism by stating that it is a growing power; “Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.” After gaining the attention of the reader, the writers present the facts: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.” Next, the division gives the paper a sense of direction. At various points in the paper, Marx and Engels outline the next topic at hand. In the beginning, they state “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” and then promptly begin to describe some forms of class struggles. Division serves to help the organization of the paper and helps it flow smoothly. After the division, the proof, or logical argument is given. As shown previously, the authors have based arguments in the manifesto upon reason; readers quickly grasp the line of reasoning the writers set up. Immediately following the proof comes the refutation which serves to defend the argument of the writers from the attacks of others. Marx and Engels address common attacks on the principles of communism. It is often argued that under capitalism, the property an individual gains is “the fruit of a man's own labor”. The authors sardonically refute that claim and argue that what is gained is the result of the proletariats labor – “Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant…?” Another counterargument of the capitalist is addressed, “It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us”, yet the authors are quick to point out the flaw in this reasoning by pointing out that the bourgeois have enormous amounts of wealth yet still continue to work: “According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work.” Finally, after the refutation, the conclusion is stated. According to Cicero, the conclusion should employ an emotional appeal as well as summarize the paper. Marx and Engels summarize the manifesto on a point-by-point basis. At the end, they rouse the audience, the proletariat, into action by masterfully appealing to the emotion – “Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Proletarians of all countries, unite!”

Style, the final canon employed by Marx and Engels, concerns the method in which ideas are articulated so they are best understood. The writers employed virtues of style such as correctness and clarity to connect to the target audience. By using simple and modern 19th century vocabulary and grammar conventions, the proletariat is likely to easily understand the concepts and ideas outlined by Marx and Engels. While the language may sound archaic in the 21st century, it certainly fit the 19th century well. Even when some vagueness of meaning is present, the authors are still able to convey the general concept. Therefore, the authors followed the virtue of style known as correctness, which states that the language used should be easily understood by the reader.

In conclusion, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels effectively use the three rhetorical appeals as well as three canons of rhetoric to give an effective presentation of communism. They reason that capitalism in its simplest form is the rich oppressing the poor, the bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat. Even the middle class will fall at the increasing political and monetary power of the bourgeoisie because money and political power go hand in hand. The proletariat can alter the course of history by revolting and destroying the concept of private property. By establishing their credibility in the beginning of the paper, using reason to give an effective argument, and ending the manifesto with an emotional conclusion, as well as using the canons of invention, arrangement, and style, Marx and Engels employed the art of rhetoric in a manner that affects the reader greatly. The citizens of capitalist society everywhere would be well advised to read The Communist Manifesto regardless of their economic ideology.

Works Cited:

Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick (1848). The Manifesto of the Communist Party. <"http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html">

Aristotle (350 BC). Rhetoric. <http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/">