What do you think?
Rate this book
Communist Manifesto and Other Writings, The (Barnes & Noble classics) by introduction and notes by Martin Puchner Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
MP3 CD Format Widely debated since its publication in 1848, The Communist Manifesto is one of the world's most influential political manuscripts. Presenting an analytical approach to the problems of capitalism and the resulting class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the text lays out the rationale and goals of communism as conceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This edition of The Communist Manifesto is based on the English edition of 1888. In addition, this collection includes the following essays and writings by Marx, translated by H. J. "A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right," "On the King of Prussia and Social Reform," "Moralizing Criticism and Critical A Polemic Against Karl Heinzen," "Proudhon," "French Materialism," and "The English Revolution."
Paperback
89 people are currently reading
1602 people want to read
About the author
Karl Marx
3,237 books6,481 followersWith the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote
The Communist Manifesto
(1848) and
Das Kapital
(1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews
May 6, 2019
Interesting as a historical document but flawed as a philosophy.
January 1, 2015
After the first portion of the Manifesto I had head bourgeois more than I had heard previously in my entire life. The subsequent sections were more interesting, and brought up some interesting points rather than just using big words to distract from shallow logic. It is interesting to consider how capital is partially an invention given meaning only through the availability of manual labor, but to say that it is solely a reflection of labor is a fallacy. There is a large portion of capital that consists of things that have intrinsic value of some sort, such as resources. Yes, it requires labor to access these things, butt their value is not defined solely in proportion to that labor. In short I would say that the Manifesto is interesting, but that it simplifies complex issues to such a degree that it lacks much practical value. In addition to that it is exceptionally foolish to assume that one group of people is more moral than another. Perhaps one group has more opportunity to be immoral, but overall there would be an equal amount of immorality if any two groups of society were interchanged.
September 9, 2019
Communism is crap, and so is reading the Manifesto. I read it for TWEM histories, but if you think you love Communism, then please read it, too, so you at minimum know what you are defending.
January 10, 2011
Down with capitalism!
July 2, 2016
Most reviewers seem too eager to explain their reason for reading The Communist Manifesto.
I find that sad - no matter what we think about Communism shouldn't we understand why more than half the world at some time or other believed in this form of government?
I thought Marx's ideas were not even as radical as Robespierre's during the French Revolution before him, nor as violent as Che's a century later. Each saw their ideology as revolution and like most revolutions were born in anger (and disgust) at the disenfranchising of the peasantry (proletariat), which in most cases worked the lands that they would never own. Another common theme is the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, represented by a socio-economic class, and the wealth gap between that class the exploited the peasantry.
Like other revolutionary thinking, Marx's ideals were reactionary, forcing a somewhat impractical utopia as the solution to the prevailing conditions: His imagined future society, for example, assumed that sheer numbers would ensure a power balance, even a power reversal among the classes. Communist nations have always seen power concentration in a much smaller percentage of their societies than capitalist counterparts.
Like Robespierre and Che later, he also incorrectly assumed that capitalism was the root of corruption and short-sighted self-centeredness. Communism in Russia would later prove this untrue - in fact, corruption appears to be independent of political systems and more likely to go unchecked under a communist regime than a capitalist one.
Where Karl Marx's communist ideal differs, and perhaps sets the tone for Russia's version of Communism vs, say China and Cuba's later, is that Marx believed in a universal communion of the working class, one without nation borders, which he also saw as a cause of self-centeredness. The French Revolution, against which he contrasts his ideal, and later communist flavors were born in nationalism. This departure is, possibly, one reason why China and Cuba's communism was more malleable in the long term than Marxist communism, which called for an ever expanding USSR that would be economically unsustainable.
Several reviewers also point out that they did not read the other writings. Perhaps to further distance themselves from the communist infection? The other writings were mostly thoughts about various socialist and communist movements and rebuttals to others writings. They read much like any political opinion piece in the New York Times or LA Times. Sure, they may advocate some sort of political ideology, but so do journalist and bloggers today.
Some day, a future generation may have a name for one of our current political movements that falls out of favor, maybe neo liberalism or Trumpism. Perhaps they too will wrinkle their noses and make excuses for reading today's political journalism, which we find as nothing more than one of several competing opinions about a people's best interests.
I find that sad - no matter what we think about Communism shouldn't we understand why more than half the world at some time or other believed in this form of government?
I thought Marx's ideas were not even as radical as Robespierre's during the French Revolution before him, nor as violent as Che's a century later. Each saw their ideology as revolution and like most revolutions were born in anger (and disgust) at the disenfranchising of the peasantry (proletariat), which in most cases worked the lands that they would never own. Another common theme is the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, represented by a socio-economic class, and the wealth gap between that class the exploited the peasantry.
Like other revolutionary thinking, Marx's ideals were reactionary, forcing a somewhat impractical utopia as the solution to the prevailing conditions: His imagined future society, for example, assumed that sheer numbers would ensure a power balance, even a power reversal among the classes. Communist nations have always seen power concentration in a much smaller percentage of their societies than capitalist counterparts.
Like Robespierre and Che later, he also incorrectly assumed that capitalism was the root of corruption and short-sighted self-centeredness. Communism in Russia would later prove this untrue - in fact, corruption appears to be independent of political systems and more likely to go unchecked under a communist regime than a capitalist one.
Where Karl Marx's communist ideal differs, and perhaps sets the tone for Russia's version of Communism vs, say China and Cuba's later, is that Marx believed in a universal communion of the working class, one without nation borders, which he also saw as a cause of self-centeredness. The French Revolution, against which he contrasts his ideal, and later communist flavors were born in nationalism. This departure is, possibly, one reason why China and Cuba's communism was more malleable in the long term than Marxist communism, which called for an ever expanding USSR that would be economically unsustainable.
Several reviewers also point out that they did not read the other writings. Perhaps to further distance themselves from the communist infection? The other writings were mostly thoughts about various socialist and communist movements and rebuttals to others writings. They read much like any political opinion piece in the New York Times or LA Times. Sure, they may advocate some sort of political ideology, but so do journalist and bloggers today.
Some day, a future generation may have a name for one of our current political movements that falls out of favor, maybe neo liberalism or Trumpism. Perhaps they too will wrinkle their noses and make excuses for reading today's political journalism, which we find as nothing more than one of several competing opinions about a people's best interests.
August 7, 2021
So there I feel slightly odd rating a piece of work that materialized and inspired such horrific events in history, but one must accept that the nation states Marx had imagined never fully manifested (and never will).
Some of Marx and Engle's flaws, in my opinion, are over simplifications of the human condition. They didn't take into account the vast array of variables and conditions that are embedded into human society. The dichotomy of oppressors and the oppressed may accurately describe social phenomena that occur, but it would foolish to believe that this somehow represents an ultimately truth that represents all human interaction.
Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that economies are zero sum games; that for one party to advance it inherently must oppress/take from another. I had a hard time internalizing the argument that private property is inherently immoral (that could be my own cultural bias, but the arguement didn't speak to me at all). But there are truths, like in most perspectives, to their criticisms of capitalism that should be taken into consideration.
Anyway, not a hard book to understand. I appreciated the other works that were added in the book to add context to what I was reading. Reading just the manifesto robs you of other necessary philosophical foundations to understand where Marx and Engles were coming from.
Some of Marx and Engle's flaws, in my opinion, are over simplifications of the human condition. They didn't take into account the vast array of variables and conditions that are embedded into human society. The dichotomy of oppressors and the oppressed may accurately describe social phenomena that occur, but it would foolish to believe that this somehow represents an ultimately truth that represents all human interaction.
Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that economies are zero sum games; that for one party to advance it inherently must oppress/take from another. I had a hard time internalizing the argument that private property is inherently immoral (that could be my own cultural bias, but the arguement didn't speak to me at all). But there are truths, like in most perspectives, to their criticisms of capitalism that should be taken into consideration.
Anyway, not a hard book to understand. I appreciated the other works that were added in the book to add context to what I was reading. Reading just the manifesto robs you of other necessary philosophical foundations to understand where Marx and Engles were coming from.
January 2, 2011
Scariest book I've read since Goosebumps: Monster Blood II
August 9, 2022
Some light beach reading while on vacation.
Read
January 24, 2025My first book of 2025 lol. It’s pretty impossible to understand most of his arguments without better historical context so I will just leave this as unrated. Definitely a struggle to get through as someone who hasn’t studied all the authors/history that Marx cites.
April 16, 2021
بكل صراحة ما احس فهمت شيء غير اهمية توزيع الثروات لماركس ولا شيء كذاك. برجع له الكتاب في يوم آخر ان شاء الله.
August 31, 2024
By and large, Marx’s writings are insufferable, the delusional ramblings of a godless maniac.
Read
August 13, 2020No rating, because one of the things I discovered, while listening to the audio version of this book (because that's what I do now, I guess), is that I know so very little about history that it's difficult-to-impossible for me to mentally situate half of Marx's statements in historical context. This is a net good for me, because I'm going to read more history and philosophy as a result, but probably of little or no interest to you. Moving along.
Basically what I gleaned was: Marx has lots of valid critiques of capitalism, and of those who critique capitalism yet benefit from it. It's hard to argue with "child labor is bad," and I tend to agree with Marx's overall leftism (obvs). Get the government to run trains and the post office and things. Sounds good to me. The thing about getting rid of inheritance is that if the state runs well, there is access to decent food, shelter, medical care, education, etc. for all members of the state, and so on, there is no real need for inheritance, landlords became irrelevant, etc. (Abolition of inheritance is one of the top things that those Founding Fathers – or as my partner calls them, "the founding daddies" – were all about. Obviously America hasn't eliminated inheritance.)
The essay "The King of Prussia" had lots of good points, especially about the hypocrisy of systems that have significant class inequalities. Marx comments that there is an urging toward charity because there is too little charity; and when charity fails to fix the larger structural inequalities, there is an outcry of too much charity. In this case, one of the primary systems Marx critiques is that of 19th Century England – one small epoch of history that I have some oblique understanding of; hooray. This portion of the essay is troublingly relevant to 20th and 21st Century America.
Returning to the Manifesto: there are things here that Marx gets wrong. For example, "Confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels," which we have seen play out IRL, is... not so great. Of course, it's weird to compare the Manifesto and essays to countries under so-called Communist governments, since of all the Communist governments that I know of, none of managed to actually be governed by the proletariat. Most people continued to have little control over their own labor or the system of labor, which is the opposite of Marx's vision of Communism.
Of the material I felt I properly understood (which, again, was limited), I had two significant disagreements. Both my issues regarded the statement about Communism eliminating morality and religion. Communism doesn't eliminate morality because morality is baked into the Manifesto; Marx's implication is that the Proletariat has an inherent morality that will create a utopian society. Assuming that any social group (dominant or oppressed) will behave with superior (or inferior) morality simply because they're a group just doesn't quite work. Social groupings are very important, and shape our lives, but they don't form a great basis for assigning absolute moralities. By creating a system of implicit morality, Marx bungles some of his own good work.
My complaint about the bit about doing away with religion is that Communism doesn't successfully purge the elements – good and bad – of religious behavior. It only shifts the object of those beliefs (and not always that, of course). Also, in practice this led to already persecuted religious groups being further oppressed (which I don't think was Marx's intention, but like I said, I literally know nothing).
Basically what I gleaned was: Marx has lots of valid critiques of capitalism, and of those who critique capitalism yet benefit from it. It's hard to argue with "child labor is bad," and I tend to agree with Marx's overall leftism (obvs). Get the government to run trains and the post office and things. Sounds good to me. The thing about getting rid of inheritance is that if the state runs well, there is access to decent food, shelter, medical care, education, etc. for all members of the state, and so on, there is no real need for inheritance, landlords became irrelevant, etc. (Abolition of inheritance is one of the top things that those Founding Fathers – or as my partner calls them, "the founding daddies" – were all about. Obviously America hasn't eliminated inheritance.)
The essay "The King of Prussia" had lots of good points, especially about the hypocrisy of systems that have significant class inequalities. Marx comments that there is an urging toward charity because there is too little charity; and when charity fails to fix the larger structural inequalities, there is an outcry of too much charity. In this case, one of the primary systems Marx critiques is that of 19th Century England – one small epoch of history that I have some oblique understanding of; hooray. This portion of the essay is troublingly relevant to 20th and 21st Century America.
Returning to the Manifesto: there are things here that Marx gets wrong. For example, "Confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels," which we have seen play out IRL, is... not so great. Of course, it's weird to compare the Manifesto and essays to countries under so-called Communist governments, since of all the Communist governments that I know of, none of managed to actually be governed by the proletariat. Most people continued to have little control over their own labor or the system of labor, which is the opposite of Marx's vision of Communism.
Of the material I felt I properly understood (which, again, was limited), I had two significant disagreements. Both my issues regarded the statement about Communism eliminating morality and religion. Communism doesn't eliminate morality because morality is baked into the Manifesto; Marx's implication is that the Proletariat has an inherent morality that will create a utopian society. Assuming that any social group (dominant or oppressed) will behave with superior (or inferior) morality simply because they're a group just doesn't quite work. Social groupings are very important, and shape our lives, but they don't form a great basis for assigning absolute moralities. By creating a system of implicit morality, Marx bungles some of his own good work.
My complaint about the bit about doing away with religion is that Communism doesn't successfully purge the elements – good and bad – of religious behavior. It only shifts the object of those beliefs (and not always that, of course). Also, in practice this led to already persecuted religious groups being further oppressed (which I don't think was Marx's intention, but like I said, I literally know nothing).
November 15, 2023
People from all over the political spectrum love to shit on this book and none of them, including the ones who have read it, actually take what he’s saying seriously or know any of the history of the times Marx describes in here. Anyone who did do both of these things would not walk away from it feeling like it’s a bunch of hooey; they’d see it as one of the most accessible and informative works of political theory ever written and not just dismiss him because “oh the USSR and China and Cuba and” (also evidence that they don’t know actual history, only contextless bits of historical information). Marx’s prose leaves a lot to be desired and I think interferes with readers ability to grasp him in any of his works, but this motherfucker hits hard. Every sentence is like a freight train, brimming with the historical and critical weight of a tanker. The third chapter of the manifesto is underrated and more “socialists” of today need to read it.
January 12, 2012
This short political treatise was very surprisingly disappointing. I have studies the History of Communist Russia quite often and I have a solid background in the ideas and practices of Communism. I understand that the Communism of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin was not completely true to what Marx and Engels envisioned. I was hoping that by reading the Manifesto, I would be able to see what true Communism was supposed to be. It turns out that the ideas are mainly theory and simply arguments against any forms of capitalism. While I can understand the intense antagonism that existed in the mid 19th-century, these ideas no longer seem appropriate. The lives of the working classes have greatly improved, while there is still a great disparity of wealth, the Communist idea seems truly outdated.
July 26, 2024
Good observations about certain aspects of society, particularly class distinctions and conflict. The ideas about family are stupid as are the ideals about the conduct of governance under communism. The logic collapses as any political system will still create a governing class--so the claim that communism will abolish classes is just untenable. The text would have been better left as observations on class and society than trying to assert a form of governance. Just because you get some observations right doesn't mean that all of your observations are correct and we should just remake the world.
I get the appeal, and some of the aims we should definitely be working towards (e.g., doing more for the working class, working towards the abolishment of class, etc.), but while the analysis of problems is solid and goals are good (and, by way of contrast, the Dark Enlightenment folks are pretty good at analysis but have terrible goals), the practice just does not work.
A quote from Death's End fits the contradiction quite well: "Of course, without exception, these 'anti-intellect' organizations wanted to maintain the intelligence of their own members, arguing that they had the responsibility to be the last of the intelligent people so that they could complete the creation of a society of low-intelligence humans and direct its operation."
The writings about religion are lame. Some of the other stuff is a little hard to follow and seems like you need to be in conversation with a lot other thinkers/history.
I get the appeal, and some of the aims we should definitely be working towards (e.g., doing more for the working class, working towards the abolishment of class, etc.), but while the analysis of problems is solid and goals are good (and, by way of contrast, the Dark Enlightenment folks are pretty good at analysis but have terrible goals), the practice just does not work.
A quote from Death's End fits the contradiction quite well: "Of course, without exception, these 'anti-intellect' organizations wanted to maintain the intelligence of their own members, arguing that they had the responsibility to be the last of the intelligent people so that they could complete the creation of a society of low-intelligence humans and direct its operation."
The writings about religion are lame. Some of the other stuff is a little hard to follow and seems like you need to be in conversation with a lot other thinkers/history.
February 21, 2022
The additional writings after the Manifesto were interesting. I listened rather than read, but I think Marx alternated between praising Rousseau, Locke, and others for their ideas and how they changed society and criticizing them for not going far enough throughout the other essays. This intrigues me after reading The Great Tradition last year. It cements the fallacy of Marx's arguments and blabbering.
July 12, 2025
I gave it 3 stars because I dont feel like I can give it a fair rating either way. Im not a Marxist and I see clear flaws in his philosophy, but I also understand the impact his philosophy has had on the world and for that reason, its important that his ideas are understood.
May 2, 2021
Absolutely brilliant. I can't believe it's taken me this long to pick it up.
July 27, 2024
for legal purposes, no comment.
November 30, 2024
It's good, somewhat outdated
March 31, 2025
Jeez... It doesn't seem like this was written hundreds of years ago. History really does repeat itself. Too much of this book parallels the current state of American politics and government. It's just....sad to read. Society truly hasn't learned a damn thing. Though, that was a point that Marx made as well. It's disheartening to think that this type of injustice will continue throughout the rest of humanity because greed is more important than justice.
A damn shame.
A damn shame.
January 30, 2019
My book only included the manifesto
I think it’s important to read this book with a pinch of salt, especially with regards to it being like 180 years old. A lot of things is applicable to society today and a lot isn’t.
I think it’s important to read this book with a pinch of salt, especially with regards to it being like 180 years old. A lot of things is applicable to society today and a lot isn’t.
August 23, 2017
What punks though, amirite?
July 21, 2025
As an anti-capitalist, I am surprised it’s taken me this long to read(/listen) to this book. Marx does a great job in his critiques of capitalism. He describes how capitalism divides society into two classes, which is exactly where we are now as a society: the bourgeoisie, or capitalists who own these means of production (billionaires), and the workers, who sell and get paid for their labor to the capitalists for as little as possible. While I agree a call to action is necessary, his idea/theory on overthrowing the system lacks any substantial or practical basis.
August 10, 2022
Every time I read Marx & Engels, whether it’s Capital or The Communist Manifesto or The German Ideology, I’m struck by how well their descriptive work mirrors conditions that exist today. They were so adept at describing economic and social issues that it’s easy to read and also still holds up when describing the situation in the United States or elsewhere today.
I was reminded during this read through that Marx & Engels emphasize globalism as a factor of capitalism that must be reckoned with in some way. Like Bong Joon-Ho said, “We all live in a country called capitalism”. What this means, according to Marx & Engels themselves, is that we cannot hope to merely effect revolutionary change on a local scale, at some level, we need global buy-in. I also particularly enjoyed the discussion of property rules under Communism, the varying kinds of (mostly ineffective) socialisms, and the discussion of communism as a strategy for ending all forms of domination (it reminded me a lot of bell hooks’ feminism).
Beyond the central text, I also liked the response to the Hegelian Philosophy of Right and the way it described religion as a system of ideas that adds flowers to chains, essentially convincing people that their lot in life is deserved and whatnot. This description of toxic religiosity made me think a lot about Nietzsche’s critiques of religion which were, no doubt, influenced in some way by Marx & Engels. I also liked the discussion of ‘partial revolution’ and the way it can harm meaningful efforts to real revolution (or how it can be meaningful in itself).
Beyond the central text, I also liked the response to the Hegelian Philosophy of Right and the way it described religion as a system of ideas that adds flowers to chains, essentially convincing people that their lot in life is deserved and whatnot. This description of toxic religiosity made me think a lot about Nietzsche’s critiques of religion which were, no doubt, influenced in some way by Marx & Engels. I also liked the discussion of ‘partial revolution’ and the way it can harm meaningful efforts to real revolution (or how it can be meaningful in itself).
April 20, 2023
It's pretty astounding how grounded Marx and Engels write while relying so heavily on academic, economic, and political understanding in the reader of The Communist Manifesto It's not a breeze, but it's not a tornado either. It calmly, collectively, and quite astutely welcomes humankind as a community (that should abolish its higher ranks). It's wild to read this so many years later, as I know these perspectives as if they were chiseled in stone on the mountaintop, but I would've been hooting and hollering if I'd read this in 19th Century Germany. It ripped! As for the other writings, boy howdy, do I think you need a time machine to go back and live as a well-read socio-poly-econ dandy to get 'em. Marx's criticism pieces are sharp with a similar tone, and, more than anything, I may attribute what I missed or rerereread to its date of publication, not its communication of ideas. Marx just goes deep in the weeds while I shout "WHAT" from the library balcony.
July 10, 2011
I only read "The Communist Manifesto" and a couple of chapters of "The 18th Brumaire"... You definitely don't read this for the excitement. I was originally inspired to read this book because I had to read the first chapter of the Manifesto for a summer class. Not only was I completely enthralled with Marx's language, but I was completely taken aback from the fact that he was right! Capitalism sucks, and Communism sounds fantastic on-paper...
Too bad for communism to work, everybody has to be poor and stay poor. And people don't like being poor.
Very interesting book, just FAR too dry for my tastes. Maybe just borrow a copy from the library and give the Manifesto a read. "Brumaire" is pretty much a VERY in-depth analysis of why communism failed during the French Revolution of the 1840s. Dry stuff, VERY dry. But still interesting, nonetheless.
Too bad for communism to work, everybody has to be poor and stay poor. And people don't like being poor.
Very interesting book, just FAR too dry for my tastes. Maybe just borrow a copy from the library and give the Manifesto a read. "Brumaire" is pretty much a VERY in-depth analysis of why communism failed during the French Revolution of the 1840s. Dry stuff, VERY dry. But still interesting, nonetheless.
July 24, 2015
Yeah.... So it was .... interesting. Without a doubt this is a monumental work (duh!). I found some parts to be great and very easy to transpose to our time, but others are too tied to the current events in Germany in 1800s to get a quick understanding. Worth it, but not an easy read over a cup of coffee
August 27, 2016
(For the sake of full disclosure, I read only the Manifesto and none of the other writings. And I probably won't read any of them, at least not for a long time).
Reader's log: 9-14-14, 6:50 PM.
I don't know where to start. I can't even assign a rating. I want to give it one star because "I didn't like it" due to the ideas in it being so repulsive, yet I feel it should also have 5 stars because it stirred up such emotions in me. That alone makes it "amazing." Logic says I should split the difference and give it 3 stars, which means I "liked it," but that definitely isn't true. Nor did I "really like it," nor was it "OK." Also, its historical significance should be taken into consideration, and that's in the 5 star range as well. All I know right now is that I feel I should take a shower after reading this filth, so I'm going to go do that, eat, watch tonight's episode of Hee Haw, relax and calm down, and come back to this review later.
-JLP
Reader's log: 9-14-14, continued, 9:20 PM.
Well, I'm cleaned, fed, and semi-rested, and a coin toss decided the star rating issue (3). I also jotted down things that popped into my head as I read it, and I think today might be placebo day, but I'm going to run with this anyway.
OK, let's see where this goes.
I should've read this years ago since I did get a history degree and everything, but never got around to it. I was probably supposed to read it during my WWI class since we covered the Russian Revolution in that, but I'm pretty sure I didn't. (Sorry, Dr. Trakas). I'm sorry I waited so long, because it was certainly riveting, and kept my attention. That being said, let's get the rest of the good points out of the way while we're at it. (It won't take long).
It was very well written and engaging.
Also, I managed to find a picture of Marx giving a reading of it pretty soon after it was written (1848):
This has been on my shelf for a couple of years now, and I just picked it up because I was disenchanted with the Governor McDonnell conviction. Not because he was found guilty so much (if you do the crime, you gotta do the time), but because of the witch hunt aspect of it, and the fact that the very people and administration that's prosecuting this are guilty of crimes so much more heinous that you can barely make a comparison, yet nobody is going after them because they're... Ok, enough of that for now, or I'll start looking like Marx in his picture. Back to the book.
I was disenchanted, and decided to see what it is my enemies think. That's never a bad idea, and the best way to do it is to read what they write and read. Just look at how Patton handled Rommel on the field in WWII.
One thing to note is that it's pure lies, and history has proven that. (The best example is the rise and fall of the USSR). The Bolsheviks put the false promises to the working class into practice, and gained power for 70-some years. But it all amounts to... Well, Fletcher says it better than I can.
"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
Let's get it straight from the horses mouth. After all, liberalism is just reheated Lenin no matter how much they try to deny it.
"There's plenty of heat where I am, comrade, I can tell you that! Nice change from mother Russia. FORWARD!"
Thanks. And Lenin is just an extension of Marx. A couple of spices have been changed, but the meat and vegetable base is the same. Marxism and Leninism are communism which is a term nobody likes to use when trying to sell it because of the negative connotation.
"MMM, MMM, GOOD!"
Yet both are socialism; they're just the extreme end of it, and they're only one step away from liberalism which is solidly socialist. Don't let the lies and linguistic acrobatics worked around that word fool you just because the liberals don't like it. It's socialism. Healthcare was recently socialized; there's no way around that. And as you know, each step we take down that road the next one gets a little bit easier, and we move closer to communism. Will we stop before we get there? I sure hope so, but my hope grows scanter as time goes on. E.G.: McDonnell. In spite of his flaws, he was a great governor who brought a lot of jobs to Virginia, and did some impressive work with our economy in spite of the federal government's efforts to do otherwise...
"Stay on target."
Breathe in... out... in... out... Sorry. I'm just tired of my team getting the shit kicked out of it, and we deserve it for our namby-pamby, pussy-footing tactics, polite tea with the enemy, and lap up their lies like...
"Stay on target."
"Breathe in... out... in... out... Just like this."
I'm trying. I'm trying! We have good people willing to fight, yet they get creamed by the impressive Democrat machine for minor things blown out of proportion, especially when compared to the evil deeds of the very prosecutors. Couple it with the impressive propaganda machine called the media which is getting worse all the time, and we're fighting an uphill battle. Cain. Gingrich. Both could've taken the asshat in chief, yet we ended up with a milksop like Romney because of silly fiddle-faddle. And now McDonnell. He was seen as a threat to the socialist agenda, so they went after him, and...
"Came from behind..."
ENOUGH!!! BOOK!!!
This thing is scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote.
"Even me?"
'Fraid so, old bean. Even you. It's an unadulterated attack on freedom, and capitalism. It is filled with lies so outrageous that... Well, Willie puts it better than I ever could.
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
Yeah. That. But what is too absurd to be believed should be believed because it is too absurd to be a lie, and Marx wasn't lying. Several revolutions started up after this was published, to varying degrees of success. Most had something in common in that they used the working class to do the heavy lifting. They managed this with lies of equality for all. History has shown that it doesn't work, and that's because it doesn't take into account the human condition. Marx spouts utopia, and his idea of society certainly would be if it weren't for people. Let's start with the bourgeoisie. They have no place in this utopia. He says so flat out in this book. So, what to do with them?
PURGE, BABY, PURGE!
That's right, comrade fucker. Marx flat out proposes violent solutions to his problems, which would make him no different from any other totalitarian crackpot in power regardless of his chosen political bend.
Here's what invariably happens with communism. An old regime is overthrown with the help of the proletariat (the working class), the communists take over, and the proletariat gets the shaft. They are left in worse condition than they ever were before. Another visual aid that's probably hard for the academic elite to take seriously, but here it is anyway.
Meet the Constructicons. They do the heavy lifting for the Decepticons. When shit gets ready to hit the fan, the man in charge yells "CONSTRUCTICONS, UNITE!" (Sound familiar)? They turn into Devastator, do their deal, and then go back to being at the bottom of the food chain. Devastator is slow-witted and gullible just like the masses used by rising-star communists who have no real intention of sharing power.
"You gotta admit, I play the squealing, wretched, pinhead puppets of the proletariat like a harp from hell!"
I'll never forget a lady who came over from Belarus through some church exchange program we had going on several years ago. She went to the supermarket, and simply broke down crying because they didn't have anything approaching that level of freedom where she came from. That's what the bull hockey in this book gets you: women crying over lettuce for sale.
Classless society and equality for all, my eye. Stalin. Lenin. Mao. Castro. Pol Pot. Jong-Il. Mariam. Has there ever been a communist regime without a ruling class standing on its working class? Yea verily do I say it: LIES!
And here's this just for the hell of it:
Those in the enemy camp will dismiss that in its entirety with all the elitist snobbery they can muster simply because it refers to Hitler. "Oh, you said 'Hitler.' LOLZ! You so cute." They'll also toss in the comment "Oh, that's such a tired talking point." Simply because something's been stated a few times, it is suddenly no longer worth listening to. Well, I believe it bears repeating. The only way anyone can get anyone else to even pay attention to what I believe is a valid concern is to show his ass.
Those less interested in the subject, and who don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it, but what's more frustrating is that we who know our history are doomed to watch it repeat itself due to the ignorance and inaction of others, typically the fearful, naive, and uneducated. (Getting rid of bourgeois education for all is also brought up in this book, or capitalist education if you will. It makes the masses easier to control if they're ignorant. Yet later it talks about free education for all). After all, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yes, socialism is evil. It kills creativity, work ethic, and pride in one's work, and spawns despair. And it always relies on theft from others to get going and stay going. Such amazing hypocrisy.
Related: remember the Obama 401(k) savings cap that was bandied around a year or two ago? I think it was let out accidentally, and has since been given the hush-hush.
"I suppose you have sometimes plucked a pear before it was ripe, Master Copperfield? I did that, but it'll ripen yet! It only wants attending to. I can wait!'
Many, including Marx, argue that capitalism is theft from the poor, but I don't see it that way. I've looked at many systems, and I believe capitalism, in spite of its shortcomings, works much better for a free society than socialism, not to mention any of the others. I've chosen a side. Many haven't, and won't until it's too late. Some will just wait it out to see what looks best when the going gets rough, but they fail to realize... Well, here's another quote.
“Cheer the bull, or cheer the bear; cheer both, and you will be trampled and eaten.”
Marx's claims purport that the poor will be taken care of with his system of government control. In fact, his way will eliminate poverty completely. Poppy cock. You need look no further than the tried and failed USSR, or any other communist regime to see that it, like every other nation in the land, is inundated with poor people. It once again ignores a simple fact of life; a part of the human condition. Here's Jesus with more details. (I confess that Andrew Lloyd Webber is his script writer here).
"Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot? There will be poor always, pathetically struggling..."
And here's Anne Thackeray Ritchie:
"...if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn."
And here's the fact of life: some people refuse to learn how to fish. And why bother to learn if someone is just going to feed you anyway (so they claim).
Closing points, because I'm running out of characters... this must be really long...
Everybody should read this book. It might be right up your alley, and you can join the enemy camp. If it isn't, you should know what they're up to. Here are the 10 goals listed in the second section:
1. Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right to inheritance
4. Confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centraliztion of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing of cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of label. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country,
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination with education and industrial production.
Some of these are already occurring pretty heavily in the USA, others not so much, but nothing this administration attempts would surprise me. Have you ever heard of the Coward Pliven? Or actually the Cloward-Piven maneuver? Overwhelm the welfare system, get as many people sucking on the government tit as possible, then whoever is in power when that government topples stays in power. The claim is that this would eliminate poverty, which is what the evil capitalists actively propagate. Is it happening before our eyes, or am I fear-mongering here? You be the judge.
Also, read Animal Farm.
And Aesop's Fables.
...I guess it was placebo day after all.
Reader's log: 9-14-14, 6:50 PM.
I don't know where to start. I can't even assign a rating. I want to give it one star because "I didn't like it" due to the ideas in it being so repulsive, yet I feel it should also have 5 stars because it stirred up such emotions in me. That alone makes it "amazing." Logic says I should split the difference and give it 3 stars, which means I "liked it," but that definitely isn't true. Nor did I "really like it," nor was it "OK." Also, its historical significance should be taken into consideration, and that's in the 5 star range as well. All I know right now is that I feel I should take a shower after reading this filth, so I'm going to go do that, eat, watch tonight's episode of Hee Haw, relax and calm down, and come back to this review later.
-JLP
Reader's log: 9-14-14, continued, 9:20 PM.
Well, I'm cleaned, fed, and semi-rested, and a coin toss decided the star rating issue (3). I also jotted down things that popped into my head as I read it, and I think today might be placebo day, but I'm going to run with this anyway.
OK, let's see where this goes.
I should've read this years ago since I did get a history degree and everything, but never got around to it. I was probably supposed to read it during my WWI class since we covered the Russian Revolution in that, but I'm pretty sure I didn't. (Sorry, Dr. Trakas). I'm sorry I waited so long, because it was certainly riveting, and kept my attention. That being said, let's get the rest of the good points out of the way while we're at it. (It won't take long).
It was very well written and engaging.
Also, I managed to find a picture of Marx giving a reading of it pretty soon after it was written (1848):
This has been on my shelf for a couple of years now, and I just picked it up because I was disenchanted with the Governor McDonnell conviction. Not because he was found guilty so much (if you do the crime, you gotta do the time), but because of the witch hunt aspect of it, and the fact that the very people and administration that's prosecuting this are guilty of crimes so much more heinous that you can barely make a comparison, yet nobody is going after them because they're... Ok, enough of that for now, or I'll start looking like Marx in his picture. Back to the book.
I was disenchanted, and decided to see what it is my enemies think. That's never a bad idea, and the best way to do it is to read what they write and read. Just look at how Patton handled Rommel on the field in WWII.
One thing to note is that it's pure lies, and history has proven that. (The best example is the rise and fall of the USSR). The Bolsheviks put the false promises to the working class into practice, and gained power for 70-some years. But it all amounts to... Well, Fletcher says it better than I can.
"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
Let's get it straight from the horses mouth. After all, liberalism is just reheated Lenin no matter how much they try to deny it.
"There's plenty of heat where I am, comrade, I can tell you that! Nice change from mother Russia. FORWARD!"
Thanks. And Lenin is just an extension of Marx. A couple of spices have been changed, but the meat and vegetable base is the same. Marxism and Leninism are communism which is a term nobody likes to use when trying to sell it because of the negative connotation.
"MMM, MMM, GOOD!"
Yet both are socialism; they're just the extreme end of it, and they're only one step away from liberalism which is solidly socialist. Don't let the lies and linguistic acrobatics worked around that word fool you just because the liberals don't like it. It's socialism. Healthcare was recently socialized; there's no way around that. And as you know, each step we take down that road the next one gets a little bit easier, and we move closer to communism. Will we stop before we get there? I sure hope so, but my hope grows scanter as time goes on. E.G.: McDonnell. In spite of his flaws, he was a great governor who brought a lot of jobs to Virginia, and did some impressive work with our economy in spite of the federal government's efforts to do otherwise...
"Stay on target."
Breathe in... out... in... out... Sorry. I'm just tired of my team getting the shit kicked out of it, and we deserve it for our namby-pamby, pussy-footing tactics, polite tea with the enemy, and lap up their lies like...
"Stay on target."
"Breathe in... out... in... out... Just like this."
I'm trying. I'm trying! We have good people willing to fight, yet they get creamed by the impressive Democrat machine for minor things blown out of proportion, especially when compared to the evil deeds of the very prosecutors. Couple it with the impressive propaganda machine called the media which is getting worse all the time, and we're fighting an uphill battle. Cain. Gingrich. Both could've taken the asshat in chief, yet we ended up with a milksop like Romney because of silly fiddle-faddle. And now McDonnell. He was seen as a threat to the socialist agenda, so they went after him, and...
"Came from behind..."
ENOUGH!!! BOOK!!!
This thing is scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote.
"Even me?"
'Fraid so, old bean. Even you. It's an unadulterated attack on freedom, and capitalism. It is filled with lies so outrageous that... Well, Willie puts it better than I ever could.
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
Yeah. That. But what is too absurd to be believed should be believed because it is too absurd to be a lie, and Marx wasn't lying. Several revolutions started up after this was published, to varying degrees of success. Most had something in common in that they used the working class to do the heavy lifting. They managed this with lies of equality for all. History has shown that it doesn't work, and that's because it doesn't take into account the human condition. Marx spouts utopia, and his idea of society certainly would be if it weren't for people. Let's start with the bourgeoisie. They have no place in this utopia. He says so flat out in this book. So, what to do with them?
PURGE, BABY, PURGE!
That's right, comrade fucker. Marx flat out proposes violent solutions to his problems, which would make him no different from any other totalitarian crackpot in power regardless of his chosen political bend.
Here's what invariably happens with communism. An old regime is overthrown with the help of the proletariat (the working class), the communists take over, and the proletariat gets the shaft. They are left in worse condition than they ever were before. Another visual aid that's probably hard for the academic elite to take seriously, but here it is anyway.
Meet the Constructicons. They do the heavy lifting for the Decepticons. When shit gets ready to hit the fan, the man in charge yells "CONSTRUCTICONS, UNITE!" (Sound familiar)? They turn into Devastator, do their deal, and then go back to being at the bottom of the food chain. Devastator is slow-witted and gullible just like the masses used by rising-star communists who have no real intention of sharing power.
"You gotta admit, I play the squealing, wretched, pinhead puppets of the proletariat like a harp from hell!"
I'll never forget a lady who came over from Belarus through some church exchange program we had going on several years ago. She went to the supermarket, and simply broke down crying because they didn't have anything approaching that level of freedom where she came from. That's what the bull hockey in this book gets you: women crying over lettuce for sale.
Classless society and equality for all, my eye. Stalin. Lenin. Mao. Castro. Pol Pot. Jong-Il. Mariam. Has there ever been a communist regime without a ruling class standing on its working class? Yea verily do I say it: LIES!
And here's this just for the hell of it:
Those in the enemy camp will dismiss that in its entirety with all the elitist snobbery they can muster simply because it refers to Hitler. "Oh, you said 'Hitler.' LOLZ! You so cute." They'll also toss in the comment "Oh, that's such a tired talking point." Simply because something's been stated a few times, it is suddenly no longer worth listening to. Well, I believe it bears repeating. The only way anyone can get anyone else to even pay attention to what I believe is a valid concern is to show his ass.
Those less interested in the subject, and who don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it, but what's more frustrating is that we who know our history are doomed to watch it repeat itself due to the ignorance and inaction of others, typically the fearful, naive, and uneducated. (Getting rid of bourgeois education for all is also brought up in this book, or capitalist education if you will. It makes the masses easier to control if they're ignorant. Yet later it talks about free education for all). After all, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yes, socialism is evil. It kills creativity, work ethic, and pride in one's work, and spawns despair. And it always relies on theft from others to get going and stay going. Such amazing hypocrisy.
Related: remember the Obama 401(k) savings cap that was bandied around a year or two ago? I think it was let out accidentally, and has since been given the hush-hush.
"I suppose you have sometimes plucked a pear before it was ripe, Master Copperfield? I did that, but it'll ripen yet! It only wants attending to. I can wait!'
Many, including Marx, argue that capitalism is theft from the poor, but I don't see it that way. I've looked at many systems, and I believe capitalism, in spite of its shortcomings, works much better for a free society than socialism, not to mention any of the others. I've chosen a side. Many haven't, and won't until it's too late. Some will just wait it out to see what looks best when the going gets rough, but they fail to realize... Well, here's another quote.
“Cheer the bull, or cheer the bear; cheer both, and you will be trampled and eaten.”
Marx's claims purport that the poor will be taken care of with his system of government control. In fact, his way will eliminate poverty completely. Poppy cock. You need look no further than the tried and failed USSR, or any other communist regime to see that it, like every other nation in the land, is inundated with poor people. It once again ignores a simple fact of life; a part of the human condition. Here's Jesus with more details. (I confess that Andrew Lloyd Webber is his script writer here).
"Surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot? There will be poor always, pathetically struggling..."
And here's Anne Thackeray Ritchie:
"...if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn."
And here's the fact of life: some people refuse to learn how to fish. And why bother to learn if someone is just going to feed you anyway (so they claim).
Closing points, because I'm running out of characters... this must be really long...
Everybody should read this book. It might be right up your alley, and you can join the enemy camp. If it isn't, you should know what they're up to. Here are the 10 goals listed in the second section:
1. Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right to inheritance
4. Confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centraliztion of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing of cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of label. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country,
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination with education and industrial production.
Some of these are already occurring pretty heavily in the USA, others not so much, but nothing this administration attempts would surprise me. Have you ever heard of the Coward Pliven? Or actually the Cloward-Piven maneuver? Overwhelm the welfare system, get as many people sucking on the government tit as possible, then whoever is in power when that government topples stays in power. The claim is that this would eliminate poverty, which is what the evil capitalists actively propagate. Is it happening before our eyes, or am I fear-mongering here? You be the judge.
Also, read Animal Farm.
And Aesop's Fables.
...I guess it was placebo day after all.
April 10, 2022
This book consists of the "The Communist Manifesto" itself, plus a few other essays. The manifesto is short, making a quick read of historical significance, and its first section is immensely interesting! It is written in a very grandiose style, it makes it sound epic - which I guess it really is!
The first section is impressive in how it describes capitalism, and how disruption and globalization are essential features of capitalism. It's remarkable that these are buzzwords of 21st century capitalism, but they were already old news for Marx! In fact, he sounds very anti-globalization in the manifesto. He predicts the cycle of progress and crises (bubbles and bursts), and predicts the gradual “sinking” of the "lower middle class" into the proletariat - both essential features of capitalism. I was surprised to see that, contrary to criticism I hear, the manifesto explicitly states that middle-class professionals are paid-laborers, not bourgeoisie; it lists them by name: doctors, lawyers, even scientists; we are all eventually proletariat! The bourgeoisie are really the rich - and by that he means the very, very rich (he even explicitly calls them "millionaires").
The second part, however, was kinda weird. The part in which he explains about the abolition of private property was very puzzling, because the authors didn’t explain at all what they meant - that is, they tried to explain, with examples and arguments, but in the end I was left completely confused. Do they want to abolish all private property? Including small personal property? Or just “bourgeoisie” property (like industries, stores, etc…)? It seemed that they were trying to draw a distinction between some property that was to be abolished and some that wouldn’t, but it was not clear at all where the line was drawn.
He then launches into answering criticisms of communism, and quick superficial rebuttals of competing ideologies. Here, he seems more focused on mentioning that this and that movement simply petered out, and didn't get anywhere. Sometimes he tried to explain why other movements got it wrong. One particular criticism stood out to me, about the "bourgeoisie socialism", which is the socialism of improving workers lives so that revolution was not needed. Although I get his point that this still leaves room to abuse, or that the bourgeoisie might do just enough to prevent revolution and no more, his criticism felt very superficial - it never rally explains what is wrong with it in principle. That is, sure, it could be badly implemented, but if it is well implemented, what is the problem?
Overall, I think that this work started really well, but then it does have two big flaws in it. First, when it calls for the change in the status quo, it's very explicit that it should be by any means necessary; and that if it creates an intermediate state of strife and suffering, it's fine, because it will all work out in the end. Unfortunately, that's exactly what gave cover for many dictators to steal the movement from the workers and institute horrible regimes, based on personality-worship and oppression of its citizens, completely anathema to Marx's ideal of communism - for how can a society call itself communist when its workers are living in miserable conditions? There never was in history any real communist country, only dictatorships that looked more like feudalism, with leaders pretending to be communist while enriching themselves, brutalizing their people, taking advantage of the believers, and never actually giving power to the people.
Second, the manifesto doesn't explain what the new society (that would replace the current one) would look like - in their eyes, it would be paradise; but how? Well, this is a manifesto, so it can't be too long, so maybe this kind of explanation doesn't have a place here. But we do know that Marx never did manage to describe his worker's paradise in any other work either, only that it would be the final outcome of his revolution. It's a pity, because it is a promising idea.
The other writings in the book were less interesting. They felt more historical in nature, harder to generalize to our time and society. They consisted of a lot of analysis of specific ideas and conditions of the time, with criticism of the contemporary society, politics, and philosophers. Some good points were made, like the harsh treatment of the poor and how simply changing who is in charge does not fundamentally change society. I think the only weakness was that these are overshadowed by a lot of play on words, on superficial arguments, trying to convince you that all roads lead inevitably to communism, but without any really compelling logic to it. However, they still offer a great historical perspective an excellent political and economic analysis of the 18th and 19th century.
The first section is impressive in how it describes capitalism, and how disruption and globalization are essential features of capitalism. It's remarkable that these are buzzwords of 21st century capitalism, but they were already old news for Marx! In fact, he sounds very anti-globalization in the manifesto. He predicts the cycle of progress and crises (bubbles and bursts), and predicts the gradual “sinking” of the "lower middle class" into the proletariat - both essential features of capitalism. I was surprised to see that, contrary to criticism I hear, the manifesto explicitly states that middle-class professionals are paid-laborers, not bourgeoisie; it lists them by name: doctors, lawyers, even scientists; we are all eventually proletariat! The bourgeoisie are really the rich - and by that he means the very, very rich (he even explicitly calls them "millionaires").
The second part, however, was kinda weird. The part in which he explains about the abolition of private property was very puzzling, because the authors didn’t explain at all what they meant - that is, they tried to explain, with examples and arguments, but in the end I was left completely confused. Do they want to abolish all private property? Including small personal property? Or just “bourgeoisie” property (like industries, stores, etc…)? It seemed that they were trying to draw a distinction between some property that was to be abolished and some that wouldn’t, but it was not clear at all where the line was drawn.
He then launches into answering criticisms of communism, and quick superficial rebuttals of competing ideologies. Here, he seems more focused on mentioning that this and that movement simply petered out, and didn't get anywhere. Sometimes he tried to explain why other movements got it wrong. One particular criticism stood out to me, about the "bourgeoisie socialism", which is the socialism of improving workers lives so that revolution was not needed. Although I get his point that this still leaves room to abuse, or that the bourgeoisie might do just enough to prevent revolution and no more, his criticism felt very superficial - it never rally explains what is wrong with it in principle. That is, sure, it could be badly implemented, but if it is well implemented, what is the problem?
Overall, I think that this work started really well, but then it does have two big flaws in it. First, when it calls for the change in the status quo, it's very explicit that it should be by any means necessary; and that if it creates an intermediate state of strife and suffering, it's fine, because it will all work out in the end. Unfortunately, that's exactly what gave cover for many dictators to steal the movement from the workers and institute horrible regimes, based on personality-worship and oppression of its citizens, completely anathema to Marx's ideal of communism - for how can a society call itself communist when its workers are living in miserable conditions? There never was in history any real communist country, only dictatorships that looked more like feudalism, with leaders pretending to be communist while enriching themselves, brutalizing their people, taking advantage of the believers, and never actually giving power to the people.
Second, the manifesto doesn't explain what the new society (that would replace the current one) would look like - in their eyes, it would be paradise; but how? Well, this is a manifesto, so it can't be too long, so maybe this kind of explanation doesn't have a place here. But we do know that Marx never did manage to describe his worker's paradise in any other work either, only that it would be the final outcome of his revolution. It's a pity, because it is a promising idea.
The other writings in the book were less interesting. They felt more historical in nature, harder to generalize to our time and society. They consisted of a lot of analysis of specific ideas and conditions of the time, with criticism of the contemporary society, politics, and philosophers. Some good points were made, like the harsh treatment of the poor and how simply changing who is in charge does not fundamentally change society. I think the only weakness was that these are overshadowed by a lot of play on words, on superficial arguments, trying to convince you that all roads lead inevitably to communism, but without any really compelling logic to it. However, they still offer a great historical perspective an excellent political and economic analysis of the 18th and 19th century.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews