What do you think?
Rate this book
The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings
The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics:
New introductions commissioned from today's top writers and scholars
Biographies of the authors
Chronologies of contemporary historical, biographical, and cultural events
Footnotes and endnotes
Selective discussions of imitations, parodies, poems, books, plays, paintings, operas, statuary, and films inspired by the work
Comments by other famous authors
Study questions to challenge the reader's viewpoints and expectations
Bibliographies for further reading
Indices & Glossaries, when appropriate
All editions are beautifully designed and are printed to superior specifications; some include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.
Largely ignored when it was first published in 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s The Communist Manifesto has become one of the most widely read and discussed social and political testaments ever written. Its ideas and concepts have not only become part of the intellectual landscape of Western civilization: They form the basis for a movement that has, for better or worse, radically changed the world.
Addressed to the common worker, the Manifesto argues that history is a record of class struggle between the bourgeoisie, or owners, and the proletariat, or workers. In order to succeed, the bourgeoisie must constantly build larger cities, promote new products, and secure cheaper commodities, while eliminating large numbers of workers in order to increase profits without increasing production—a scenario that is perhaps even more prevalent today than in 1848. Calling upon the workers of the world to unite, the Manifesto announces a plan for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and empowering the proletariat.
This volume also includes Marx’s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), one of the most brilliant works ever written on the philosophy of history, and Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx’s personal notes about new forms of social relations and education.
Communist Manifesto translated by Samuel Moore, revised and edited by Friedrich Engels.
Martin Puchner is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, as well as the author of Stage Fright: Modernism, Anti-Theatricality, and Drama and Poetry of the Revolution: Marx, Manifestos, and the Avant-Gardes (forthcoming).
New introductions commissioned from today's top writers and scholars
Biographies of the authors
Chronologies of contemporary historical, biographical, and cultural events
Footnotes and endnotes
Selective discussions of imitations, parodies, poems, books, plays, paintings, operas, statuary, and films inspired by the work
Comments by other famous authors
Study questions to challenge the reader's viewpoints and expectations
Bibliographies for further reading
Indices & Glossaries, when appropriate
All editions are beautifully designed and are printed to superior specifications; some include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.
Largely ignored when it was first published in 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s The Communist Manifesto has become one of the most widely read and discussed social and political testaments ever written. Its ideas and concepts have not only become part of the intellectual landscape of Western civilization: They form the basis for a movement that has, for better or worse, radically changed the world.
Addressed to the common worker, the Manifesto argues that history is a record of class struggle between the bourgeoisie, or owners, and the proletariat, or workers. In order to succeed, the bourgeoisie must constantly build larger cities, promote new products, and secure cheaper commodities, while eliminating large numbers of workers in order to increase profits without increasing production—a scenario that is perhaps even more prevalent today than in 1848. Calling upon the workers of the world to unite, the Manifesto announces a plan for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and empowering the proletariat.
This volume also includes Marx’s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), one of the most brilliant works ever written on the philosophy of history, and Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx’s personal notes about new forms of social relations and education.
Communist Manifesto translated by Samuel Moore, revised and edited by Friedrich Engels.
Martin Puchner is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, as well as the author of Stage Fright: Modernism, Anti-Theatricality, and Drama and Poetry of the Revolution: Marx, Manifestos, and the Avant-Gardes (forthcoming).
224 pages, Paperback
Published September 25, 2005
About the author
Karl Marx
3,420 books6,949 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 Bakunin 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 Bakunin 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 146 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
January 31, 2026
the history aspect of it was i tresting but leo hated the rest of it and i fear i do not like his writing style
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?
June 7, 2026
Dry but educational. Though lacks actionable points.
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.
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.
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
Displaying 1 - 30 of 146 reviews