In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna reemphasized the legitimacy of monarchies (Cole and Symes 661). The Congress of Vienna did little to change the opposition, however; in fact, multiple ideologies became popular with the people: conservatism, liberalism, various forms of socialism, and nationalism (Cole and Symes 673, 675-684). Nationalism and liberalism, along with the poor harvests of the Hungry Forties, sparked the multiple revolutions of 1848 (Cole and Symes 696). The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, co-authored by Friedrich Engels, was published at an opportune time, given that was released that same year and was relevant to the issues in society (Cole and Symes 679, 680, 695-6). By contending that “[w]orking men have no country,” Marx insisted that the authoritarian control of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie caused the proletariat to feel disillusioned and disconnected from their “nations”, which is why political regimes were afraid of a proletariat revolution (Marx and Engels 102).
Marx’s quote signified that the proletariat was on its own and did not have an authority figure protecting its interests on which it could rely (Marx and Engels 102). The current status of classes in society was discussed by Marx, wherein he emphasizes the disparity between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by making references to other opposing classes that have existed in societies in the past, such as “[f]reeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman” (Marx and Engels 79-80). He expanded on these examples, explaining how ancient Rome had “patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves” and the Middle Ages had “feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs” (Marx and Engels 80). He attributed this modern conflict between classes to the discovery of America and subsequent colonization, which caused increased trade, giving way to navigation and industry and thus, the bourgeoisie and the feudal system of industry (Marx and Engels 80). The feudal system of industry was replaced by the current manufacturing system, whose high demands resulted in steam and machinery (Marx and Engels 81). This further maximized industry and thus, the power of the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 81). This argument is logical since the bourgeoisie, who are already privileged because they the means of social production, excluding the actual labor performed by workers, only got richer as the demand for production got higher and the class distinctions became greater (Marx and Engels 79n1). The more power the bourgeoisie has, the more harshly they can treat the workers. Marx then asserted the strong influence of the bourgeoisie on the government, observing that “[t]he executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”, emphasizing that the bourgeoisie is really in charge and the proletariat is merely a vehicle for executing its desire, ignoring the desires for the proletariat, fostering a sense of alienation (Marx and Engels 82). He continued his discourse by saying, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society” (Marx and Engels 83). He has said that these class struggles have persisted for so long because the bourgeoisie kept innovating in order to maintain their status, bringing civilization to all nations (Marx and Engels 83-4). Marx then detailed the situation of the proletariat and how they were treated as “commodit[ies]” rather than humans, as they were only hired if labor was needed to increase capital and how their work lost individual character (Marx and Engels 87). This dehumanization and lack of compassion was very disheartening to the proletariat and the reason they were angry, fueling them to take their anger out on the machines used for production rather than the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 88-9). The proletariat suffered even more as the competition between the bourgeoisie heightened and more innovations developed, making their wages fluctuate while the bourgeoisie only got richer, which was why Communism advocated for a monopoly controlled by the state (Marx and Engels 85, 89-91, 104). Because the bourgeoisie had so much control over all aspects of the lives of the proletariat, in work and in government, a proletariat revolution would be troubling to them, especially since the proletariat is a key element for the continued increase of wealth for the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 82, 85, 89-91). Marx believed that the proletariat’s lack of support from their nation caused them to feel apathetic and lack loyalty for the nation in which they lived.
On another note, even though Marx talked about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat ad nauseam, he did not only talk about these two classes. Marx denigrated the lower middle class, (small manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans, and peasants) because their sole incentive in fighting the bourgeoisie was to preserve its class and claimed that “law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests”, meaning that law, morality and religion were designed to further the interests of the bourgeoisie, while neglecting the importance of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 91-2). Essentially, Marx is calling out the lower middle class for pretending to hold views contrary to the bourgeoisie, when they actually have some common interests. Marx failed to concretely establish where the petty bourgeoisie stood as a class in society, as he claimed they were a part of the bourgeoisie but even admitted that they “fluctuat[e] between proletariat and bourgeoisie” (Marx and Engels 108). He went on to say that the petty bourgeoisie would ultimately fade away and be absorbed by “overlookers, bailiffs, shopmen” (Marx and Engels 108).
Because the proletariat united over their common disillusionment over their oppression by the bourgeoisie, political regimes in Europe were justified in worrying about proletariat uprisings. The expansion of the unions was really crucial for the workers, as well as stronger awareness of the issues due to modern methods of communication (Marx and Engels 90). Although there were bumps in the road with internalized competition among the proletariat, this united front of workers evolved into a class, and then a political party (Marx and Engels 90). The party was strong and was able to achieve some legislative victories due to the divisions of the bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 90). These actions by the proletariat would surely cause worry for the European nations, as their whole regimes depended on the flourishment of the bourgeoisie, since the bourgeoisie is performing all the labor (Marx and Engels 79n1). Another cause for concern would be how the proletariat became equipped with tools for fighting, resulting from when the bourgeoisie previously asked them for help against the aristocracy and they did not have such tools (Marx and Engels 90-1). Marx then discussed how some of the bourgeoisie would join the proletariat on the eve of the revolution, as the bourgeoisie was slowly fading away (Marx and Engels 91). The migration of some of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat was also worrisome, as the bourgeois governments would lose some of the very people for whom they were operating. Because the bourgeoisie owned everything except the labor which the proletariat produced, the proletariat had no reservations about taking the land from the bourgeoisie to share with the rest of society once the revolution occurred (Marx and Engels 102-4). This demonstrated the lack of loyalty that the proletariat felt towards the nation, which would be alarming to Europe.
When Marx stated that “[w]orking men have no country”, he meant that although the workers physically lived in a country, they did not feel any connection to said country, which would be disturbing to its government (Marx and Engels 102). Because The Communist Manifesto was published at the same time that a multitude of revolutions occurred, proving his theory to be true, European nations were justifiably apprehensive (Cole and Symes 679, 680, 695-6). Although the people felt invigorated enough to instigate riots, these riots, unfortunately, did not end up being enough to achieve the significant changes they were seeking. The French and German governments repressed these revolts (Cole and Symes 697-707). France went on to have another authoritarian government following the 1848 revolutions, with Napoleon III serving as emperor (Cole and Symes 711, 714). Although attempts at unification for Germany and Italy were unsuccessful with the revolutions of 1848, both eventually became united, with complete German unification occurring by 1871 and complete Italian unification by that same year (Cole and Symes 704, 716, 718, 721).