Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Manifesto of the Communist Party
    Manifesto of the Communist Party
    Manifesto of the Communist Party
    Ebook107 pages46 minutes

    Manifesto of the Communist Party

    By Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

    3.5/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherArchive Classics
    Release dateJan 1, 1888
    Author

    Friedrich Engels

    Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) was, like Karl Marx, a German philosopher, historian, political theorist, journalist and revolutionary socialist. Unlike Marx, Engels was born to a wealthy family, but he used his family's money to spread his philosophy of empowering workers, exposing what he saw as the bourgeoisie's sinister motives and encouraging the working class to rise up and demand their rights. He wrote several works in collaboration with Marx - most famously "The Communist Manifesto" - and supported Marx financially after he was forced to relocate to London. Following Marx's death, Engels compiled the second and third volumes of Das Kapital, ensuring that this seminal document would live on. He continued writing for the rest of his life and died in London in 1894.

    Read more from Friedrich Engels

    Related to Manifesto of the Communist Party

    Related ebooks

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Seduction Of Socialism

      Jul 26, 2018

      For the current generation, sometimes referred to as millennials, it appears one thing is more seductive than sex -- and that's socialism. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, winner of a New York Democratic primary, a

      2 min read

    • Article

      A Nation’s Alibi

      Feb 25, 2020

      A Nation’s Alibi
      8 min read

    • Article

      Left Behind

      Apr 18, 2022

      There exists a strand of social thought, stretching from Georg Hegel in the 19th century through to Max Weber in the early 20th and Jürgen Habermas in the postwar era, that insists a hallmark of modernity is the differentiation of forms of human know

      7 min read

    • Article

      From Hegel to Hollywood

      Oct 26, 2023

      FROM MY WINDOW SEAT, WHERE THIS essay is being written, my field of vision encompasses the flotsam of a shipwreck — the shipwreck of a self-destructive civilisation. Our sitting room has two lamps salvaged from a Viennese house designed by the Austri

      5 min read

    • Article

      When Nationalism Was Woke

      Mar 30, 2023

      THE “SPRINGTIME OF NATIONS”, as historians decades later started calling that extraordinary year of revolutions, began in Palermo and Naples in January 1848, when a series of violent demonstrations forced the Bourbon ruler of The Two Sicilies from th

      5 min read

    • Article

      The City of Ideas

      Jan 3, 2024

      The City of Ideas
      6 min read

    • Article

      "The 1848 Uprisings Were A Dissonant Orchestra Of Ambitions And Intentions"

      Apr 13, 2023

      Matt Elton: Before we explore the causes of the revolutions of 1848, could you sketch out where and when they took place? Christopher Clark: In January 1848, revolution broke out in Palermo and N aples, two major cities of what was then called the Ki

      9 min read

    • Article

      History

      May 19, 2023

      History
      3 min read

    • Article

      The Broken Circle

      Dec 23, 2020

      THERE ARE FOUR AGES OF MODERN VIENNA. Before the First World War, it was cultured and rich; from 1918 until the Anschluss with Nazi Germany, it was cultured and poor; from 1938 to the end of the Allied occupation, it was just poor; and from 1955 to t

      11 min read

    • Article

      Viennese Whirl

      Aug 23, 2023

      Viennese Whirl
      3 min read

    • Article

      Our True European Home

      Jul 27, 2023

      Our True European Home
      8 min read

    • Article

      Pop Goes German Philosophy

      Aug 1, 2017

      With their TED Talks, TV shows, and runaway best-sellers, a new generation of celebrity philosophers has made German philosophy more popular than ever. But are they ruining it in the process?

      11 min read

    • Article

      From Worms To Woke

      May 26, 2022

      HAVE WE BEEN HERE BEFORE? Now, in 2022, with war abroad and woke at home, we contemplate the bitter dissolution of the hopes of the late twentieth century. Five hundred years ago, in 1521, Martin Luther’s appearance at the Diet of Worms signalled the

      5 min read

    • Article

      A Gentlemanly Love of Liberty

      May 3, 2018

      We learn on its first page that this book had its origin in a conversation in England between its Portuguese author as a young man and the Austrian-born British subject Karl Popper, a professor of political philosophy at the London School of Economic

      5 min read

    • Article

      Wrong Name!

      Jul 8, 2022

      Wrong Name!
      2 min read

    • Article

      In Search Of Unity

      Feb 17, 2022

      In Search Of Unity
      3 min read

    • Article

      Defender Of Democracy

      Dec 27, 2019

      Defender Of Democracy
      7 min read

    • Article

      A Tale Of Two Revolutions

      Feb 10, 2023

      A Tale Of Two Revolutions
      2 min read

    • Article

      The Guillotine Mystique

      Oct 23, 2020

      The Guillotine Mystique
      19 min read

    • Article

      Marxist Mechanics

      Jun 19, 2022

      Marxist Mechanics
      2 min read

    • Article

      A Lesson in Humility, a Lesson for Our Times: Alessandro Manzoni’s The Betrothed

      Nov 1, 2020

      “Ministers, general managers, commissars, prefects should purchase a copy … of Alessandro Manzoni’s The Betrothed to be read in idle moments, to be kept on their desk or on their nightstand at night, to be at hand when they cannot sleep. It is one of

      25 min read

    Reviews for Manifesto of the Communist Party

    3.5/5

    39 ratings40 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      How does one rate a classic? If one could only change the world in 30 pages or so! What always strikes me is that, much like Dr John Hewson's Fightback! policy from the early 1990s, most of the pamphlet has been implemented already (sans the revolution, and admittedly Hewson's work was considerably longer at 650 pages!). Nevertheless, of the ten "measures" (p. 20), Australia has, over time, implemented many of the plans through what, in some ways, still displays remnants of social democracy. However, as with Fightback!, and while many like to think it was all nonsense, much of it has been done or is still in the doing. Whether the great Internationale will die with the contemporary return to nationalism is a moot point when one considers the exponential increase in growth and power of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (not to mention India, which is quite another story). But this probably won't concern me, at least in this life.
    • 4/5
      Compelling propaganda pamphlet, much shorter than I thought.
    • 5/5
      One reason why this book has stood the test of time and become a major talking point for a host of instructional formats is that it is written in an easily understood and comprehensive manner. I does not deviate from its intent in an attempt to justify its claims, but rather keeps to the point and finishes concisely.
    • 3/5
      This was an interesting read. It's not something I would normally pick up but I felt like it's something everyone should read because of it's historical significance. It didn't make me want to become communist, but there are some points that I felt that I could logically support. I would definitely need to reread this a few more times to get an educated opinion on what is being said.
    • 2/5
      Reading this with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see the many flaws in the communist theory. On the other hand I can see how so many could have been persuaded that it was a good idea in the 19th & early 20th centuries - if you were working all your life and getting nowhere, with no hope of an improvement of life for yourself or your children the communist ideals would have sounded attractive.
    • 4/5
      Marx's criticism of capitalism is still relevant today and so his work is a must-read for those interested in economics, philosophy, politics and society in general. Makes you think... This was very easy to listen to as an audiobook and short and concise.
    • 4/5
      I read this when studying political economy at the University of Glasgow. It's a very interesting read and ought to be read by everyone. Communism is one of the world's common ideologies, so whether you agree with it or not you ought ot understand what it is all about.
    • 2/5
      It will never catch on :)

      Revolutionary ideas wrapped in tortured prose
    • 4/5
      I found this book among a stack my daughter no longer wanted and since I had never read it, I decided to see what all the fuss has been about. I was surprised that it was written in 1848. I thought it was a 1900s document. I found it to be fascinating. The fact that Marx really saw the discovery of America and the Industrial Revolution as the beginning of the problem was something I had not known. I was also impressed at Marx's foresight in terms of the process of capitalism. Frankly, I agree with much of his interpretation of the problems of capitalism and rampant materialism, which has continued to progress as he predicted. The problem for me is that his solution does not seem viable to me. I am no great philosopher or economist, but my sense is that there will always be leaders, and as the world population grows there will just be more of them. I may just be cynical, but I think that putting any group in power, even the righteous proletariat, will eventually lead to greed and power struggle. Glad to have read this.
    • 3/5
      Read this years ago in high school, and decided to take another look as a graduate student. As one of Marx's major works, he articulates a desire for a shift away from corporatism, familial inheritance, and other trappings of a burgeoning bourgeois society. However, he doesn't offer much of a solution or ideas to reach these ends - much to the chagrin of those who followed his ideals.

      It's also easy to not understand the position from which Marx writes this - his time period was one of revolution and appalling standards of living among most of Europe.

      If this was a ranking of the work's importance, it would rank 5/5. However, given the limitations of explanation on how to carry out his goals, 3/5.

      Even if you disagree with many of the ideas presented here (as I clearly do), it is worth reading at least once.
    • 2/5
      This is a short essay by Karl Marx. His ideas seem to be in response to dislike for Western capitalism. His ideas are radical and do not appear to be practical as evidenced by history. Reality and theory do not match. Interesting from a historical standpoint.
    • 1/5
      What a load of malarky. Merely a treatise on mediocrity and a manual on how a minority might rule the majority. I would love to dismantle this nonsense here, but I'm not sure anybody is going to read this, so I'll spare my metacarpals.
      The education rant, however, sounds oddly familiar. It sounds like the US dept. of education cut and pasted this section right into their own manifesto on how to educate American children.

      Silly commies, freedom's for capitalists.

      Rant:

      Why does everyone keep repeating "capitalists-imperialist." GOVERNMENTS create empires. Government IS empirical in nature which is what's advocated by Marx-Engels. Capitalist and imperialist are conflicting terms since governments create monopolies, a free market is politically and socially blind.

      Sorry Marxists, history supports these assertions.
    • 3/5
      A classic. Kind of an obligation to read this sort of material.

      I?ve been hearing about ?The Communist Manifesto" since middle school, so I finally decided to pick up a copy [on iBooks - it?s in open domain] and checked it out.

      It?s a short piece [52 pages], divided into four sections.

      The first section was awesome. It?s about the relationship between the working and the ruling class, and why it is as it is. It talks about such things as the dissolution of social capital into financial capital [such as in the destruction of the family for industrial means] [p7]. It talks about the fragility of the industrial economy [p8], the profit/debt cycles that drive that economy forward [p9], and globalization [p9]. It even talks about how financial capital has become a form of artificial intelligence [p12]. The inverse relationship between the repulsiveness of a job and its pay is also investigated [p13]. It talks about the homogenization of culture [p18], and the 99% [p18]. In short, it?s brilliant.

      After that though, the piece goes down hill. The second section outlines communism, which doesn?t seem to address any of the problems outlined in the first section, except for property [p26]. Instead, it looks into centralization, something I?m not a fan of. And then the third section didn?t really make sense to me, because it heavily referenced current [mid 1800s] political conditions. The fourth section is simply a final call to action.

      I?m not exactly sure why Marx understood the situation so well [his analysis is still dead on today], yet couldn?t approach meaningful application. I?d still recommend giving his work a read though.
    • 3/5
      I've been so accustomed to Marx being demonized that I was surprised to hear his rational, warranted concern for the working class in society. His intent seems pure. That being said, I still disagree with his ideas on communism. Marx is right that the working class of his time (what we might now see in developing countries) needed proper representation but his solution is misguided. He also justifiably decries the income gap, but again his solution is misguided. This solution is an "overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy" and the "abolition of bourgeois property" (13). The result seems ideal, the working class now have representation and there is no longer an income gap. I might have been swayed at this point if I did not have history on my side. Communism has never been fully realized, and all of its offshoots were failures. This is because man is at heart acquisitive and self-centered. Where there might have been communism, leaders and administrations formed, as seen in Eastern Europe and Russia. Even in these pseudo-communist systems, black markets formed and were the most effective means of acquiring goods and services.

      So while the conditions of developing nations may seem despicable, history has shown us that upholding private property and free markets as the goal has led to great advances in wealth and technology. While the impoverished still exist in America, Japan, England, and Australia, that number is extremely low in comparison to developing nations. Obviously we can see that the progression of private property and free markets leads to goods. Communism is an enticing idea?I actually wish it could work?but our nature does not allow it, history shows us this flaw in our character. With this evidence we should now be working to exploit this flaw for the betterment of society, not using the betterment of society as an incentive to work against mankind's character.




    • 2/5
      Marx was an interesting thinker and the strength of this work is Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx predicted problems we are currently dealing with today, such as, globalization, corporate greed, and redundant wars.

      Although it sounds like a good idea, Marx's concept of an equal global classless utopia is impossible and dangerous. Social dominance is integrated in human nature, along with many other undesirable human traits. Marx doesn't answer the question of who is going to check the state that has power over private property, the national bank, control of communications and transportation, the industrial armies, etc. This gives power back to the state over the worker, and history has shown the suffering this can lead too.

      To me Marx has a simplistic view of the world. He has this notion that economics dominants everything in a society. The truth is society, culture, and customs are more complicated and dynamic than Marx would have one believe. He does have some good ideas, but his global utopia is not practical in today's world.
    • 3/5
      I enjoyed reading this a great deal. It was nowhere as difficult or as inaccessible as I imagined. But it was also rather depressing because though I understand the position of the authors, so much of the manifesto reads as a youthfully idealistic vision of what can be and no real grounding for how to make it be.
    • 5/5
      Just finished the communist manifesto. In an ideal world communism and democracy would combine to create a form of government where the individual is represented and respected while the state takes away the burned of merely existing like men of ole. Working only to provide: food, water, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Leaving man to focus on the development of self AND state. I know the only way a society like that could ever be is with the total annihilation of capitalism (not democracy) and the social enlightenment that self-worth derived from competition is false and that self worth starts internally and THEN extends out, no costume or mask that one adorns can ever really give value because material does not last as long as self and value in material things fade soon as the "thing" fades.
    • 4/5
      A thought provoking and landmark book. The Manifesto was a reaction against the industrial revolution and untethered capitalism, which resulted in extraordinarily unfair labor practices and a heavy skew between those few at the top of the economic pyramid, and those at the bottom who were shouldering the load. Perhaps that was always true throughout history, but post-Enlightenment, and in the 19th century in particular, leading thinkers and artists said, ?enough.? Marx and Engels just took it a step further than others, by stating that all private property needed to be abolished and made collective. How could they have taken such an extreme position? As Pozner says in the introduction: ?Few people today have even the remotest idea of the horrors of mid-nineteenth-century labor. ? Marx was sickened by what he saw, as were many others, among them Charles Dickens. But differing from everyone else, Marx set out to discover whether there was any rhyme or reason for this situation, any basic underlying motive for this state of affairs, anything resembling a law. ? Where Marx differed from Thomas Jefferson and most other thinkers was in his certainty that a decent livelihood (the pursuit of happiness) was not possible without two basic elements: political equality and economic equality. ? He may have been an idealist in believing that once the conditions of human existence were changed, once private ownership of property was abolished, once exploitation disappeared, people would change as well. He believed that in a society where there were no have-nots, where one?s livelihood did not depend on struggling to make money, where instead of competing against one another people worked together??In his list of ten measures to be taken by all nations, there are some that I agree with unequivocally and which you may take for granted today (progressive income tax, free education for all children in public schools), some that are arguable (abolition of inheritance, equal liability to all in labor), and some that I disagree with (abolition of private property, centralization of production by the State). As Capitalism was extreme in 1848, so was Marx and Engel?s counter. They swung the pendulum too far the other way, and were too idealistic in doing so. Furthermore, they could not have foreseen what perverted forms their theories were to take in practice in the following century, where private ownership was replaced by state ownership, not public, and individual liberties were crushed by totalitarianism. It was dangerous in its time to declare ?Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!.?, and it was dangerous more than a century later. Being branded a communist during the Cold War in America led to loss of work, black balling and exportation; the communists were ?the enemy?, without much thought outside of intelligentsia as to what communism actually stood for. Read it for that.Quotes:?You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.??Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.?
    • 3/5
      I reread this book or more appropriately this pamphlet as a part of my observation of a high school World History class. I had read it many years before but found it interesting and deeper meaning looking back at it. Say what you will about communism and Marx but like it or not they are both a part of our world. The students seemed to find it confusing due to its older style of writing of the turn of the century. As we discussed what some of the more confusing paragraphs were about the students became more engaged and enjoyed this primary source. As a teacher this is a great way to introduce the rise of communism post WWII.
    • 4/5
      Important as a source and vividly written, though I do not agree with all of it.
    • 3/5
      I needed something to balance out "The Law" by Bastiat. Interesting reading.
    • 3/5
      The Manifesto itself, is a profound and masterful work. What undoes this book, however, is the pitiful introduction by A.J.P Taylor. This introduction, unlike Marx's work, is an unimportant quibble of its time (1967). He rails on and on for 47 pages (longer than the manifesto itself!) about how 2 buddies from Germany managed to fool millions of people into believing their crazy deluded message, and how these two lads, working completely and always alone, utterly misunderstood history and economics and sociology down to the core. The work itself is a classic simply because millions of people have been deluded into worshipping it, but the men themselves were self-obsessed and narcissistic and thought themselves gods among men, when in fact they were poor economists, and even poorer historians.A.J.P. Taylor wrote this in 1967, and one cannot understand why on earth such an introduction could be commissioned or approved to accompany the Manifesto. I can only imagine what the public opinion of communism must have been like at the time - fear and loathing of the USSR alongside complete and total faith in capitalism. In an amusing passage, Taylor takes a break from criticizing Marx to "disprove" his critique of capitalism in the light of modern history, arguing that capitalism has proven itself after the little hiccup of the '30s. Well, it's 2011, and today economists like Nouriel Roubini are questioning capitalism altogether and the world is mired in collective contemplation on how to save the world economy. It seems that despite all of Taylor's fluff, Marx and Engels turned out to be far more timeless thinkers than he was.Read the Manifesto, just don't read this version. It is nothing more than publishers wanting to make more pennies by pawning Marx's writings off with fluff-filler as an addendum.
    • 5/5
      so, this is that "bad" little book, huh? while historically important, the text will be unlikely to shock modern youth, except perhaps in it's portrayal of communists as something less than evil, vampiric beings from outer space.that appears to have been the point as the european media was then launching intense rhetorical attacks upon the communist revolutionaries that, in addition to reasoned debate, also included slur campaigns, personal attacks, police state repression and flat-out lies. hysterical over-reactions to leftist ideas were not isolated to the united states in the 1950s, they go back to well before the era of revolution, back to questionable crusades launched against communal, and conveniently heretic, settlements throughout the mediterranean and still further back to the roman civil wars. they are inarguably still with us today. the text was written just long enough after the french revolution had failed that various tweaked attempts to rekindle the revolution were beginning to pop up in the capitals of europe. the revolts of the mid-nineteenth century had many of the same goals as the revolts of the mid-to-late eighteenth century, most prominently the overthrow of a ruling class (here "bourgeoisie", there "aristocracy"), a revival of democracy and a return to a scientific, rationalist pre-christian greco-roman society. fear of enslavement by industrialization fuses with hope that technology will be able to revolutionize society; the idea was never to destroy production but to ensure that compassionate humans are always in control, never machines that lack the ability for empathy. despite what eventually came of marxism, it's important to understand this manifesto within this historical context; communism was meant as the new rationalism and the new democracy, a democracy of labour, as an attempt to correct the errors that led to the failure of the first revolution.it's within this historical irony that the manifesto surprises. today, nobody picks up the communist manifesto expecting to read about how democracy is the ideal form of government. nobody expects marx to describe how the "historical struggle" for democracy will end up with communism, and may even think that these concepts are inconsistent with each other. here he argues against the exploitation of children, there for the fair and equal treatment of women and somewhere else for universal education. the communist future will have no state, no laws, no crime, no class and no inequality.now, it should be noted that all of that sounds a little bit utopian and it's easy to accuse marx of naivety because of it. however, the manifesto was written for an existing audience of communists and authors more than it was written as a sterile delve into academic theory and there are more than a few passages that, in their simplicity, seem designed to convince the irrigorous, not lay out the theory in intricate detail. this text is a political document. it is a propaganda pamphlet designed to organize growing resistance under the control of a director and was used in precisely that way to stir up several revolts.it should also be pointed out that marx had less than utter disdain for the bourgeoisie, although he certainly exaggerates his outrage throughout the text. marx saw the bourgeoisie itself as characteristic of a sort of failed revolution, the remnants of an upheaval in class and technology that usurped power from the aristocracy during industrialization. he points out some of the positive aspects of this failed revolution, suggesting that it was not a totally lost opportunity to improve living conditions: the collapse of feudalism (even if what replaced it is not much better), urbanization and the rescue of "a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life", unheard of levels of production leading to more and more goods to be used by proles and bourgeois alike, etc. what he attacks is the failure of the bourgeoisie to take these reforms to the next step. he speaks about the failure of the bourgeoisie to bring democracy to europe, indeed of their construction of a new form of "despotism" instead, and the slave-like conditions that exploited workers, viewed as little more than cogs within machines, were forced to endure in order to reap larger and larger profits for the bourgeoisie as they expanded into greater and greater markets. his solution was simple and really quite rational: the only way to ensure that factory workers are not exploited is to allow them to run their own factories. when all of the theory, jargon and rationalizing of thousands of pages of writing by marx and engels is stripped to it's very core, giving workers control of the means of production to ensure that they can never be enslaved by an upper class is really all there is to the central idea of marx' philosophy. it's an idea that actually strikes me as heavily influenced by jefferson's argument for the separation of powers as it is based upon the same simple idea that the only way to avoid despotism is through making it very, very difficult to gather the instruments of control under a single pair of hands.the value in reading this short text is to strip yourself away from the staggering level of ignorance that exists around marx in the west today. prepare to be surprised as the biases that the media has injected within you for your whole life are disintegrated by the simple task of actually reading the source material. be prepared to recognize that, ultimately, and despite the idiosyncrasies inherent within his writing, marx was merely another left-libertarian in the meta-liberal tradition of jefferson and mills. finally, be prepared to learn why, despite the allure of the status of being labelled that way, you are probably actually not a communist.
    • 3/5
      Despite its intended purpose, the manifesto in practice is an utter disaster. The idea of a utopian society where all the classes are equal and all rights are shared unanimously, in writing sounds fine, but in reality given the conduct of human nature, it is a calamity waiting to happen. The critique given of capitalism reaches all aspects of society. The basis being that the exploitation of labor from the lower class workers will cause an uprising against the middle and upper class that tend to control all the assets and wealth. The difficulty with what became of this document isn?t necessarily the ideas that were stated, it is how gluttonous leaders interpreted it and took advantage of the less privileged disregarding what was ultimately intended.
    • 1/5
      The rantings of a man who's ideology would work only in the smallest of settings, or perhaps in a utopia. Attempts at implementing the policies laid out in this work have killed millions outright and millions more from starvation and poverty. Reading this is a matter of knowing your enemy.
    • 3/5
      Marx, it's nice, like victoria sponge, but I prefer gateau, such as Foucault and Adorno and Horkheimer. They further advance the ideas started by marx (like gateau advances the idea of cake). Marx is naive (here ends cake metaphor), but then he was relying on historical context...ah the benefit of hindsight...Really, if you like Marx, read The Culture Industry, in Dialectic of Enlightenment, by Horkheimer and Adorno (of the Frankfurt School).
    • 4/5
      I took a graduate-level literary theory class and picked socialism as my topic of choice over which to complete a semester-long project and presentation. Boy, am I ever glad I did.I remember in high school I had heard so much negativity about communism and socialism; I cracked open my textbook to the glossary to find the actual definitions, and was left only with vague impressions and more questions.Finally, I had some answers. This is a volume that I think everyone should read before they spout off misinformed ideas and opinions over communism and socialism. So many base their opinions off of fundamentalists--after all, we don't judge all Christians on the slight margin of fundamentalist Christians, don't we? (Well, we shouldn't.) And so on. Many have taken Marx's ideas and twisted and distorted them to their own agendas. This has led people to mistrust and dislike communism and socialism upon just hearing the words.However, if you read Marx's ideas, they are fundamentally logical and sound. Maybe not exactly plausible, but definitely something worth thinking about.
    • 4/5
      What to make of this slim volume that everyone has heard of but few have read? (And even fewer have read properly.) First, it's essential to dump your preconceptions, and forget world history since 1917. Marx (with the support of Engels) was describing the economic world as he saw it, based on his studies of history and economy; and then he looked forward to what he saw as the inevitable outcome of that system. Though his analysis was ultimately flawed because history turned out differently, his analysis remains incontrovertible. Even though our world and our working lives are totally changed from that of 1848, it remains true that those who do not have independent means have to sell the only thing at their disposal, that is their labour. That is true whether those people (call them workers, call them the proletariat, the names are unimportant) sell the labour of their muscles, their hands and eyes, or their brains. And if those people cannot alleviate the conditions under which they have to sell that labour, if they cannot get a fair deal or a fair price for that labour, then they will eventually revolt. When Marx wrote the Manifesto, that revolution had to take place in a physical way because the bulk of workers did not have a franchise. Now, the 'revolt' takes the form of our voting a new Government into power every five years or so - though we are now seeing, in the early years of the 21st Century, that exercising a limited vote for political groupings that offer very similar things to each other - or worse still, only offer least worst options - is a route fraught with dangers.That those who brought about socialist revolution in the 20th Century took this book as their guide has closed many minds to it. Of course, if you are starting a revolution, you can point to things in this book and claim you are acting in accordance with Marxist thought. It is more honest to acknowledge your debt to those who have gone before and stand in the name of your own ideology (as indeed Marx did); but people don't do that, because it means that they might have to take responsibility for their actions. It is far easier to say 'I only did what it said in the Manifesto/the Bible/the Qur'an/Mein Kampf/(insert other sacred text of choice)". So this book and Karl Marx gets wrongly blamed for much that happened long after he died.Do not let that colour your reading of 'The Communist Manifesto'. Rather, read it, challenge its application to our times, use what seems appropriate and disregard what seems inappropriate. And yes, cry "Working men of all countries, unite!"
    • 2/5
      It is an error to assume that the problem with humanity is an inability to recognize our own problems. While it's true that we constantly look outside for answers, this is just because we are unhappy with the answers we have. We know that success requires hard work and knowledge, but we want something easier. We will accept an easier answer even when it isn't true. We are not motivated by what is true or likely, but by frightening or enticing stories.We are driven away from the necessary and the difficult by our inadequacies and fears, and so rarely move ourselves any closer to fulfillment. In a perversity of justice, those who do achieve the things which we imagine would fulfill us (wealth, fame, beauty, genius) are no more fulfilled than the average man, and just as beset by inadequacy and fear. Often, more so.Transhumanism represents a hope that we can escape this pattern of ignorance and self-destruction but only by escaping the human bodies and minds that cannot control themselves.The Manifesto always seemed little more than a sad reminder of our failings, though it did motivate people and provided a test of the mettle of humanity. Beyond that, it does more to rile than to increase understanding of the economy and our role within it. It is sad that a work which is at least based on some worthwhile principles falls to the same simple fears and ideals that plague our everyday lives.The manifesto tries to take all of the economic theory of its authors and create from it a story that will excite the common man. They did not expect that most of them would pick up Das Kapital and start really thinking about their role in things. It was enough to engage their greed and sense of injustice without intruding much on their understanding.The average man does not want to understand, he would prefer to believe. It is unfortunate that the main effect proven by the Communist movement is that any and every political system simply shifts wealth and power from one group to another, and little aids the serf or the unlucky.We Americans are in little position to stand over the 'failure of Communism', since democracy has not proven any kinder to mankind, nor can it deliver justice equally to the poor and the rich.
    • 4/5
      For many people through the years this book has been something similar to the Qur'an.It's a compelling and fascinating though short text, a look backward in time.

    Book preview

    Manifesto of the Communist Party - Friedrich Engels

    The Project Gutenberg EBook of Manifesto of the Communist Party, by

    Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

    almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

    re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

    with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

    Title: Manifesto of the Communist Party

    Author: Karl Marx

    Frederick Engels

    Editor: Frederick Engels

    Release Date: February 5, 2010 [EBook #31193]

    Language: English

    *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY ***

    Produced by Al Haines, from images obtained from The Internet Archive.

    Manifesto

    Of the

    Communist

    Party

    By

    KARL MARX

    and

    FREDERICK ENGELS

    AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

    Edited and Annotated by Frederick Engels

    Price 10 Cents

    NEW YORK

    Published by the New York Labor News Co., 28 City Hall Place

    1908

    PREFACE

    The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Communist League, a workingmen's association, first exclusively German, later on international, and, under the political conditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. At a Congress of the League, held in London in November, 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare for publication a complete theoretical and practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January, 1848, the manuscript was sent to the printer in London a few weeks before the French revolution of February 24. A French translation was brought out in Paris, shortly before the insurrection of June, 1848. The first English translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George Julian Harney's Red Republican, London, 1850. A Danish and a Polish edition had also been published.

    The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June, 1848—the first great battle between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie—drove again into the background, for a time, the social and political aspirations of the European working class. Thenceforth, the struggle for supremacy was again, as it had been before the revolution of February, solely between the different sections of the propertied class; the working class was reduced to a fight for political elbow-room, and to the position of extreme wing of the Middle-class Radicals. Wherever independent proletarian movements continued to show signs of life, they were ruthlessly hunted down. Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central Board of the Communist League, then located in Cologne. The members were arrested, and, after eighteen months' imprisonment, they were tried in October, 1852. This celebrated Cologne Communist trial lasted from October 4 till November 12; seven of the prisoners were sentenced to terms of imprisonment in a fortress, varying from three to six years. Immediately after the sentence the League was formally dissolved by the remaining members. As to the Manifesto, it seemed thenceforth to be doomed to oblivion.

    When the European working class had recovered sufficient strength for another attack on the ruling classes, the International Workingmen's Association sprang up. But this association, formed with the express aim of welding into one body the whole militant proletariat of Europe and America, could not at once proclaim the principles laid down in the Manifesto. The International was bound to have a programme broad enough to be acceptable to the English Trades' Unions, to the followers of Proudhon in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain, and to the Lassalleans(a) in Germany. Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes of the struggle against Capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to men's minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions of working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The International, on its breaking up in 1874, left the workers quite different men from what it had found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying out, and even the conservative English Trades' Unions, though most of them had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which, last year at Swansea, their President could say in their name, Continental Socialism has lost its terrors for us. In fact, the principles of the Manifesto had made considerable headway among the workingmen of all countries.

    The Manifesto itself thus came to the front again. The German text had been, since 1850, reprinted several times in Switzerland, England and America. In 1872 it was translated into English in New York, where the translation was published in Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly. From this English version a French one was made in Le Socialiste of New York. Since then at least two more English translations, more or less mutilated, have been brought out in America, and one of them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian translation, made by Bakounine, was published at Herzen's Kolokol office in Geneva, about 1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulitch, also in Geneva, 1882. A new Danish edition is to be found in Socialdemokratisk Bibliothek, Copenhagen, 1885; a fresh French translation in Le Socialiste, Paris, 1886. From this latter a Spanish version was prepared and published in Madrid, 1886. The

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1