"We therefore see that the means of production and exchange, on whose foundations the bourgeoisie was built, were generated in feudal society. At a certain point in the development of these means of production and exchange, the conditions in which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in a word, feudal property relations became no longer compatible with the productive forces already developed; they became so many chains. They had to be torn apart. Say no to plagiarism Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? place. free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economic and political domination of the bourgeois class."—Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, pages 477-478 (trans. Robert C. Tucker) Written in 1848 as a way to help the Communist Party outline and define a specific social vision, the Communist Manifesto explores the ways in which the bourgeois institutionalization of free trade has become harmful to human civilization Before outlining how free trade has become a weight for societies around the world, Marx and Engels explore the reasons and delve into the origins of this socio-economic regime by telling their own history of the world – even stating that “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of struggles of class” – Marx and Engels attempt to reason through their current socioeconomic environment However, by appealing to an unsustainable past to justify their ideals of a stable future, Marx and Engels highlight an irreconcilable irony in their own work, which throws. the first doubts about whether communism is fully viable. and Engels, “[that] the means of production and exchange, on which the bourgeoisie was built, were generated in feudal society.” In this section theorists have described, with copious anaphora, the qualities of the bourgeoisie. Now, having addressed who the members of the bourgeoisie are, what they do, and who they are not, Marx and Engels turn to discuss their origins. This marks a shift in the passages that follow that explain that class distinction is still relevant, and this shift is also clearly emphasized by stylistic devices. The passage begins with a concluding “Let's see then” as opposed to the repetitive opening of “The bourgeoisie” present in almost every paragraph up to this point. The origins of bourgeois social relations are important to Marx, as is the Communist Manifesto, at its core, addressing the origins of a new set of social relations: those of the proletariat. It is therefore important that the authors understand how and from where the current state of society and commerce emerged. (For reasons of expediency, only Marx's name will be used from now on. This must be done respectfully; after Marx's death, Engels wrote in the preface to the 1883 German edition that “The fundamental thought running through the Manifesto – ...this fundamental thought belongs only and exclusively to Marx, I have already stated it many times, but right now it is necessary that it also places itself in front of the Manifesto itself" (472). Marx looks specifically "at the means of production and exchange”, since this set of factors is what he claims to be the “foundation” on which “the bourgeoisie was built”. put an end to all feudal, patriarchal and idyllic relationships”. A strange irony plagues the reading of the origins of the bourgeoisie, which according to Marx “torn withoutpities the various feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors' and has left no other connection between man and man than naked self-concentration. interest, rather than cash payment'” (475). While not incorrect in their characterization, these passages seem to almost reflect a kind of nostalgia for feudal times. However, feudal conceptions and practices of trade and commerce paved the way for the rise of capitalism. Marx offers his explanation of what these conceptions and practices were, designating “a certain stage in the development of these means of production and exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in a word, feudal property relations". It does not further explain what this “certain phase” refers to or what was so unique about this phase that it brought about an abrupt change in bourgeois capitalism. Furthermore, Marx expresses this conception of social relations in many different ways, calling it, in layers: “These means of production and exchange” or “The conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged” or “The feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry” or “Feudal property relations”. Clearly these descriptions all refer to one concept, however Marx uses four levels or definitions to fully define what he intends to convey. But even in presenting these four descriptions, Marx does not provide any concrete examples (at least not in this passage; perhaps he believes that the text around this passage is specific enough). There are subtle differences between these four descriptions; the words “means”, “conditions”, “organization” and “relationships” are used in the translation. These different word choices overlap minimally and, when added together, present a broader picture than any one could present alone. It was not only feudal society that collapsed, but also all its economic systems, as well as all the means at its disposal to support itself. Sustainability is the key. According to this passage, the “development of these means of production and exchange” was not always subject to disintegration. At a certain point this development was no longer sustainable, it came into conflict with what Marx calls "already developed productive forces" and then proceeded to collapse. The European feudal system consisted of serfdom and the maintenance of large manors or estates. Serfs were peasants who worked for the lords who owned the manors and formed the largest population group in feudal society. In many ways, the bourgeoisie-proletariat divide at the heart of Marx's entire argument is very similar to the master-serf situation deemed despicable by many at the end of feudalism. Marx himself criticizes this distinction between lord and serf, denouncing the various eras of history and the oppression of one class by another: «in the Middle Ages», he says, «[we have] feudal lords, vassals, masters of guilds, journeymen , apprentices, servants” (474). He recognizes this constant theme throughout history, but believes there may be a definitive progression towards socialism and communism, which would break this chain of unsustainable class relations. The end state of proletarian rule would then, of course, be sustainable, a marked departure from all its oppressive predecessors. In this crucial phase with which Marx is concerned, feudal property relations became “other chains”. This sudden restriction and internal tension necessarily led to the “shattering” of these “property relations”. Here too, Marx's choice of the term “burst to pieces” is interesting, as it provides very different images from relationships that “crumble” or “fade away”..