Basic Communist Manifesto questions

[punisa]

I just started re-reading the thing and have some questions from the very beginning:

1) Marx mentions that before bourgeoisie and proletariat there were multiple classes (merchants, kings, peasants, slaves etc etc) - so how far can we trace these? When have the classes emerged?

2) When Marx wrote: "The bourgeoisie 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.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation."

Was he being a bit sentimental about the whole class struggle? Judging from this - the bourgeoisie is the most oppressing class in history, would this be correct?

3) lesser class always in the end conquers the ruling class and in the process becomes ruling class itself.

Does this happen when a certain ratio is reached?
For example in current times of economic crisis many mebers of the bourgeoisie are becoming a lesser class - the proletariat.
So does that mean that once the proletariat becomes so large it will simply overwhelm the capitalist class by its sheer size?

4) How exactly did the peasants and/or serfs become the bourgeoisie? And was there some sort of planned revolution to become a ruling class or did this happen "naturally" (invention of steam power etc)?

[Aurorus Ruber]

Was he being a bit sentimental about the whole class struggle? Judging from this - the bourgeoisie is the most oppressing class in history, would this be correct?

In some ways. I think his point was that the bourgeosie has manage to reduce everything to money and thereby divest life of the dignity it once had. People may have been exploited previously, but at least had pride in their work, which under capitalism has become merely a commodity identified by monetary value.


4) How exactly did the peasants and/or serfs become the bourgeoisie? And was there some sort of planned revolution to become a ruling class or did this happen "naturally" (invention of steam power etc)?

From what I understand, some of the peasants moved to cities and became burgers. These burgers made money off trade and artisan work, eventually becoming wealthy enough to challenge the traditional power of the nobility. The term "bourgeosie" actually derives from "burg" referring to urban strongholds. I don't know if they consciously planned to become the new ruling class, so much as get the aristocrats off their back.

[gestalt]

I just started re-reading the thing and have some questions from the very beginning:

1) Marx mentions that before bourgeoisie and proletariat there were multiple classes (merchants, kings, peasants, slaves etc etc) - so how far can we trace these? When have the classes emerged?

Slavery dates back to the urban revolution at the least and the class divisions it fostered. Nobility emerged either out of the priestly or the warrior class, depending on the society, who each lived off the labor of the rest of the population or "peasants." Merchants have existed in most societies, a prominent ancient example are the maritime trading Phoenicians, but their ascendancy occurred in the waning stages of feudalism. This leads into your fourth question.


2) When Marx wrote: "The bourgeoisie 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.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation."

Was he being a bit sentimental about the whole class struggle? Judging from this - the bourgeoisie is the most oppressing class in history, would this be correct?

Sentimental is probably not the best word for it. Marx was stating that capitalism has done away with the esteem once afforded these and other professions and reduced them to their material nature, each rents their labor for a price. Another example would be that, under pre-industrial conditions, the business owner or artisan had both material and moral responsibility for his employees or apprentices. With the advent of industrialism, that relationship was torn asunder.


3) lesser class always in the end conquers the ruling class and in the process becomes ruling class itself.

Does this happen when a certain ratio is reached?
For example in current times of economic crisis many mebers of the bourgeoisie are becoming a lesser class - the proletariat.
So does that mean that once the proletariat becomes so large it will simply overwhelm the capitalist class by its sheer size?

It is more than just proportions. The capitalist revolution was a minority revolution, spearheaded by the bourgeoisie when the state no longer served its material needs. What sets apart the proletarian revolution is that it will be the first revolution in history initiated by the majority and for the majority. Already the proletariat is the single largest class in history and class antagonism has been reduced to its most simplified form (e.g., producer v. non-producer). Marx would say class consciousness of material conditions is the necessary precursor for overthrow, Lenin would say that a vanguard could accomplish the goals, any other tendency will differ as well.


4) How exactly did the peasants and/or serfs become the bourgeoisie? And was there some sort of planned revolution to become a ruling class or did this happen "naturally" (invention of steam power etc)?

Serfs who were able to escape or accumulate enough funds to buy their freedom from the lords moved to urban areas, often becoming artisans or traders, were called burghers. They began accumulating capital through these various means. Their ascendency was due to the superiority of capitalism over feudalism, it was not necessarily inevitable though. The various capitalist revolutions occurred because the feudalist property relations no longer served the interests of the most revolutionary class. The state as the superstructure then reflects the economic base with the capitalists at the helm.

[HalPhilipWalker]

To continue with what people have already mentioned about 4):

These burghers in Europe were interested in trading with the Far East for their exotic valuables. They started the first protocorporations in the form of joint-stock companies, chartered monopolies approved by the nobility, in order to do so. In doing so, they invented the basic aspects of capitalism which still exist today. These joint-stock companies existed for centuries in some cases and were responsible for European colonisation and imperialism.